Forum Thread

The Second Amendment: "A Cornerstone holding up all the others"

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 12 Posts
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Further claiming that "the Founders knew what they were doing when creating this amendment. . ." to hold up all the other amendments.

    That's what I would call going way far out on a slender and shaky limb.

    dothaneagle.com/news/letters_to_editor/...

    The writer goes on to speculate that "a home-grown government could become as oppressive (meaning the British colonizing corporation, the East India Company just removed by the Revolution of the Americans) if unchecked."

    There's a vast difference between bowing down to the endlessly profit-seeking goals of a corporate entity and a "We the People" government.

    God! I wish these Second Amendment people would read the whole damned Amendment and read up on the history of the Amendment. And I wish they understood the basics of a "We the People" government.

  • Independent
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    The best rationale regarding the second amendment that I can find. In point of opinion the founders did NOT believe that the government they established would end in tyranny as long as the ballot worked.

    eyler.freeservers.com/JeffPers/jefpco29...

  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    lonely bird Wrote:

    The best rationale regarding the second amendment that I can find. In point of opinion the founders did NOT believe that the government they established would end in tyranny as long as the ballot worked.

    eyler.freeservers.com/JeffPers/jefpco29...

    Total B.S. Please read that "amendment" and place yourself in those times. It certainly does not say that "civilians" should have "assault" weapons and 100's of rounds of ammunition in huge clips which tears your guts to shreds. The writers like you posted are just like our rotten lawyers trying to interpret things of 1800 to fit 2018. That "amendment" applies solely to the situation in 1800 and not now. Stop the B.S.
  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Thanks lonely bird for sharing the Jeffersonian Perspective on guns and the second amendment. It makes for insightful reading. I will share it with others.

    The 2nd amendment is in many ways like the various clauses in the 1st amendment or the 14th amendment - subject to interpretation by the courts, but unfortunately we have a Supreme Court that has been more political at times. The article mentions "We the people" but no where in the Constitution is it implied that "corporations are people". It just kind of got slipped in the back door and SCOTUS was complicit.

    Democratic Hub: The Supreme Court's Judicial Activism role in Campaign Finance Reform

    This is off the topic of the 2nd amendment, but is illustrative of how the wording of the Constitution and its amendments can be sinisterly twisted into something that was NOT intended by the drafters of the Constitution until it becomes case law.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    The ballot vs. the bullet. Yep!
  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Kenosha, WI
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Here's a better idea, just put the constitution into this machine because it is basically meaningless in this day and age.

    either that or amend the entire thing.

  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Yes; either amend it to make it so it makes sense today, or scrap it and write a new one without "loopholes and trickery" and" use "common sense". I wrote down an whole list of things which should be amended, so this country can move forward instead of being stuck in 1800 or 1920 with its laws. Thanks to that we are now stuck with an egocentric con-man sitting in the White House thrashing all the "rules", because there are no "black and white real laws" to even remove him from office. The total nonsense of being able to "claiming" the "fifth" is again an stupidity in the laws here. Scott of FL claimed that a dozen times and got of the hook for his crimes and made fortunes as well became Governor; Trump will do the same. Thanks to our stupid laws. Impeachment is also just about impossible if the Congress does not approves such. Thus we may be stuck with this asshole for a long time because of our outdated laws.
  • Independent
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dutch Wrote:
    lonely bird Wrote:

    The best rationale regarding the second amendment that I can find. In point of opinion the founders did NOT believe that the government they established would end in tyranny as long as the ballot worked.

    eyler.freeservers.com/JeffPers/jefpco29...

    Total B.S. Please read that "amendment" and place yourself in those times. It certainly does not say that "civilians" should have "assault" weapons and 100's of rounds of ammunition in huge clips which tears your guts to shreds. The writers like you posted are just like our rotten lawyers trying to interpret things of 1800 to fit 2018. That "amendment" applies solely to the situation in 1800 and not now. Stop the B.S.
    Dutch, calm down. Jefferson said ALL rights were subject to modification. That includes the second amendment. I fully support modifying it. Individuals do not need assault or assault-style weaponry. Nor do they need large capacity clips or “cop-killer” bullets.
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    lonely bird Wrote:
    Dutch Wrote:
    lonely bird Wrote:

    The best rationale regarding the second amendment that I can find. In point of opinion the founders did NOT believe that the government they established would end in tyranny as long as the ballot worked.

    eyler.freeservers.com/JeffPers/jefpco29...

    Total B.S. Please read that "amendment" and place yourself in those times. It certainly does not say that "civilians" should have "assault" weapons and 100's of rounds of ammunition in huge clips which tears your guts to shreds. The writers like you posted are just like our rotten lawyers trying to interpret things of 1800 to fit 2018. That "amendment" applies solely to the situation in 1800 and not now. Stop the B.S.
    Dutch, calm down. Jefferson said ALL rights were subject to modification. That includes the second amendment. I fully support modifying it. Individuals do not need assault or assault-style weaponry. Nor do they need large capacity clips or “cop-killer” bullets.

    You said: "ALL rights were subject to modification" . So please show me the "amendment" on the "second amendment". No one has until now "amended" such. Thus what I'm saying is 100% correct. Sorry, but that antique document only applied for the "guns" and "militia" at the time of writing. Our forefathers were too stupid to foresee developments etc, and should have stated that such law only was valid for that particular period and should have been revised every 3 years thereafter.

    If they would have had "brains" then when the first "gatling gun" was produced they should have "amended" this piece of crap paper.

  • Independent
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dutch Wrote:
    lonely bird Wrote:
    Dutch Wrote:
    lonely bird Wrote:

    The best rationale regarding the second amendment that I can find. In point of opinion the founders did NOT believe that the government they established would end in tyranny as long as the ballot worked.

    eyler.freeservers.com/JeffPers/jefpco29...

    Total B.S. Please read that "amendment" and place yourself in those times. It certainly does not say that "civilians" should have "assault" weapons and 100's of rounds of ammunition in huge clips which tears your guts to shreds. The writers like you posted are just like our rotten lawyers trying to interpret things of 1800 to fit 2018. That "amendment" applies solely to the situation in 1800 and not now. Stop the B.S.
    Dutch, calm down. Jefferson said ALL rights were subject to modification. That includes the second amendment. I fully support modifying it. Individuals do not need assault or assault-style weaponry. Nor do they need large capacity clips or “cop-killer” bullets.

    You said: "ALL rights were subject to modification" . So please show me the "amendment" on the "second amendment". No one has until now "amended" such. Thus what I'm saying is 100% correct. Sorry, but that antique document only applied for the "guns" and "militia" at the time of writing. Our forefathers were too stupid to foresee developments etc, and should have stated that such law only was valid for that particular period and should have been revised every 3 years thereafter.

    If they would have had "brains" then when the first "gatling gun" was produced they should have "amended" this piece of crap paper.

    There hasn’t been any amendment. What there has been on other rights is modification by law. You do not have absolute freedom of speech. You do not have absolute freedom to assemble. You do not have absolute freedom of the press. You do not have absolute freedom of religion. What is lacking regarding the second amendment is the political will to do something about it. And of course we have a SCOTUS that misinterpreted the amendment.

    As regards the founders being to short-sighted should we say that applies to social media and the internet?

    I don’t like guns. I won’t likely ever own a gun. Imo guns have led, along with the failed war on drugs as well as racist law enforcement to the militarization of the police. That being said the gun problems did not really exist on this scale up until the advent of the Great Prevaricator. There were serious changes that went on thanks to the B-list actor. He made it possible for racism to be ok even if it was still covert. He fucked up virtually everything he touched with the exception of nuclear disarmament. His successors performed barely to somewhat better until Mr. Tangerine Man. He threw the lid off racism completely. This combined with a macho, simplistic mindset, changing demographics and a shitty economy has left us with immature, heavily armed assholes whose response to any emotional situation is to shoot first. Yet at the same time there are places where people can own guns and that don’t have the mess we have. So. Pass laws or amendments to modify the second amendment. Elect people who will. Because there are still people who hunt, still people who sport shoot. They simply don’t need military weapons. And they shouldn’t have them.

  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Yes you described what is wrong with this country; serious changes should be made with "serious" black and white" laws. Not the laws which are here with built in loopholes or twisted explanations and disclaimers done by a zillion lawyers. In Europe there are only few lawyers compared to here, because of our awful dated Constitution as well "talk" only country.

    Like I said so many times, that is the reason why everything is so corrupt here. I used to draft aircraft sales contracts so I know what the tricks are in the disclaimers. Also I never had disputes because the contracts were sound for both parties. However the "children" in this government make a total mess of the interpretation of the Constitution as well any "new" laws here. As example: Here in FL they are so stupid that they made a law that you only get fined for "texting" behind the wheel if you get into an accident. Total "nuts"; in Europe the law is "black and "white" and says only "hands free" driving is allowed; thus neither a cellphone on your ear, let alone texting. But yeah this America, we love to do everything half ass.

  • Independent
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dutch Wrote:

    Yes you described what is wrong with this country; serious changes should be made with "serious" black and white" laws. Not the laws which are here with built in loopholes or twisted explanations and disclaimers done by a zillion lawyers. In Europe there are only few lawyers compared to here, because of our awful dated Constitution as well "talk" only country.

    Like I said so many times, that is the reason why everything is so corrupt here. I used to draft aircraft sales contracts so I know what the tricks are in the disclaimers. Also I never had disputes because the contracts were sound for both parties. However the "children" in this government make a total mess of the interpretation of the Constitution as well any "new" laws here. As example: Here in FL they are so stupid that they made a law that you only get fined for "texting" behind the wheel if you get into an accident. Total "nuts"; in Europe the law is "black and "white" and says only "hands free" driving is allowed; thus neither a cellphone on your ear, let alone texting. But yeah this America, we love to do everything half ass.

    I won’t argue that we do stuff half-assed. We certainly do. And with the man-child-in-Chief as president seeking out staff based on ability to ass-kiss, it is no wonder things are worse.