Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Poll

Should Ordinary Citizens be allowed to own, carry, & use Firearms to defend their own lives, & the lives of their family & friends?

Absolutely Yes!
I thinks so.
I don't think so.
Definitely No!
My name isn't String, so let me have a icy cold beer so I can ponder the options...
Topic: Gun Control - Should Ordinary Citizens Own, Carry, & Use Firearms? (Read 332424 times)

Re: Gun Control - Should Ordinary Citizens Own, Carry, & Use Firearms?

Reply #1350 –
Quote from: ersi on
According to the amendment, the militia is necessary for the security of the state.
A "Free State" represents an idea. You may of over simplified there. To defend a "Free State" is to defend the principles not the land.

Quote from: ersi on
The Constitution had already been written and now the Congress was debating the amendments. Any Brits in the Congress?
Either you misread me or I am you, but that seems to be a non sequitur.

Quote from: ersi on
To *have guns* is not the same thing as *bear arms*. One is owning them, the other is to carry them around. The other is for the militia, insofar as the amendment is concerned, and the militia is to be regulated, it requires specific types of guns, not any random types, so guns have to be regulated too, when you bear them.
Again, interpretation agrees... In some States... That open carry is unnecessary. But the wording does not limit. That is what can be debated in law but even that is mostly left up to individual States. Some are tougher than others but Constitutionally the Feds are supposed to leave open ended interpretation to the States - subject to the Supreme Court's rulings. If you're struggling with why things are - keep reading the document. Each amendment has it's own interpretation and some you'll be willing to accept as obvious although not explicitly stated. They each play off each other to give you a feel of the document's meaning. A meaning that can and has changed. That's why it's not so much a list of definitives and their defining qualities as principles to be held up first.

Quote from: ersi on
Just amusing to observe how an idea can get out of hand and be touted to be constitutional with original intent
Agreed, so long as you don't let that amusement lead to considering the actual meaning a joke.

Re: Gun Control - Should Ordinary Citizens Own, Carry, & Use Firearms?

Reply #1351 –
When attempting to understand the United States Constitution, you must investigate the original intentions of the Framers who wrote the Constitution, & research related documentation from the 18th Century specific to the Constitutional debates.

Applying modern day logic & definitions will ALWAYS lead you down the wrong path.


There are two clauses that comprise the Second Amendment, an operative clause, and a prefatory clause.

Operative Clause: "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The operative clause is the actual protected right; kind of the 'meat and potatoes.'

The court wrote:  "1. Operative Clause. a. 'Right of the People.' [used 3 times in Bill of Rights] ... All three of these instances unambiguously refer to 'individual' rights, not 'collective' rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body." .

Prefatory Clause: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State."

The prefatory clause is the lead-in that "announces a purpose" for the operative clause. 

The court stated: "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".

The court also stated:

"The Amendment could be rephrased,  'BECAUSE a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.'"


These findings by the U.S. Supreme Court are brilliant examples of what will result when the research is done properly, with the goal of revealing the Original Intent of the Framers of the US Constitution, & at the same time debunking Modern Progressive interpretations, as often quoted by those who either have ulterior motives/agendas, or unqualified knowledge of the Constitution's Original Intent.

JFYI......a quick note of interest to those unfamiliar.....in the 18th Century the phrase "....well regulated...." meant well trained, not regulated by an entity.
     In times of universal deceit, telling the honest truth is a revolutionary act.
 

Re: Gun Control - Should Ordinary Citizens Own, Carry, & Use Firearms?

Reply #1352 –
The States' rights to regulate has also been upheld.
Quote from: Smiley
Applying modern day logic & definitions will ALWAYS lead you down the wrong path.
It's the only path. Causality and such. Otherwise there wouldn't be other amendments.

Re: Gun Control - Should Ordinary Citizens Own, Carry, & Use Firearms?

Reply #1353 –
Quote from: ensbb3 on
The States' rights to regulate has also been upheld.

Yes, such is true, but that ability to regulate was, & always will be limited...............by the Constitution & or by the Court....Re:Heller....

The Rights of the States will never rule over, or negate, the Rights of the People as defined in the Constitution & or by the Court(s).

If the People wish to exercise their Right to Amend their Constitution, they have the Right & ability to do so.....The Constitution is the Peoples Document, the Peoples Law.



Source:      LAW.COM     
Quote
........The Constitution, on the other hand, by opening up with
“We the People” immediately affirms that the Constitution is of the
people, for the people, and by the people of the United States. This
interpretation, which arises most strongly from the presence of “We the
People” in the Preamble, effectively leads to an understanding of the
Constitution as affecting the people directly and not through regulations
imposed on the States. In other words, those words define that the interaction
between the Constitution and the citizens of the United States is direct and
immediate, meaning that the Constitution, and the government it
creates, supersedes any State government.

The words “We the People” in the
Preamble are often considered the strongest links between the Constitution and
the Declaration of Independence, in that the Declaration of Independence was
written from the perspective of the people, not of specific individuals or of
government. In beginning the Preamble of the Constitution with “We the
People,” the Constitution is immediately emphasizing the significance of
the people and is also ensuring an understanding that the people are the ones
giving power to the Government. This is also a critical element to
the American Constitution, in that the power of the Government mandated by the Constitution comes not from God
or from itself, but from “We the People.” .........





     In times of universal deceit, telling the honest truth is a revolutionary act.

Re: Gun Control - Should Ordinary Citizens Own, Carry, & Use Firearms?

Reply #1354 –
Quote from: ensbb3 on
A "Free State" represents an idea. You may of over simplified there. To defend a "Free State" is to defend the principles not the land.
You should pay more attention to how lawyers use the word "idea". They use it to turn things on their head.

So you are saying that the "security of a free State" is about the security of an idea? Perhaps  "militia" is also an idea and therefore "well regulated" is meaningless because instead of a regulator (namely, the state) regulating something (namely, the militia), we are left with an idea regulating another idea for its own security.

Quote from: ensbb3 on
Again, interpretation agrees... In some States... That open carry is unnecessary. But the wording does not limit.
Does not limit what exactly? It says "well regulated" there, doesn't it? And as it is, aren't gun rights regulated by law in your country? Particularly in the sense of being restricted to certain types of guns and limiting their use to certain types of situations. Just like anywhere else in the world, you cannot have a private mortar or a tank at home, can you? So this right is limited, and the wording of the amendment directly indicates it be limited.

Quote from: ensbb3 on
If you're struggling with why things are - keep reading the document.
No, I'm not struggling with the interpretation. The only thing on the side of the gun rightists is the fact that the 2nd amendment is the 2nd amendment, also called the Bill of Rights for historical purposes (even though it doesn't say Bill of Rights in the actual document, if it matters to you at all what the document says). This fact by itself, when you overblow and idealise the concept of Bill of Rights, can get you the interpretation that you have, including the notion that there are no gun rights elsewhere in the world because they are not in the other countries' constitutions or their equivalent of Bill of Rights, while in reality other countries achieve the same effect with ordinary laws.

Re: Gun Control - Should Ordinary Citizens Own, Carry, & Use Firearms?

Reply #1355 –
Quote from: OakdaleFTL on
Indeed, guns are prevalent in this world.
The freedoms that persist in the U.S. are not.

Why is that?

Arguing from a position of ignorance isn't very exciting (and anyway we'd be beaten by the master). It could work with an Socratic method, where by my own arguments would be forced to admit that guns are the only thing stopping me from eating my neighbours. No Socrates here.

We are left with:
  • Guns are the citizen's protection against bad government (as argued by @ensbb3 )
  • Guns are the citizen's protection against bad neighbours and passersby
  • Any attempt to alleviate the escalation of violence and the accidental violence that guns enable would despoil their talismanic powers

The rationale to cause such a harm is due to:
  • A mistaken belief that guns are the instigators of violence
  • A fear of freedom

Re: Gun Control - Should Ordinary Citizens Own, Carry, & Use Firearms?

Reply #1356 –
Quote from: ersi on
No, I'm not struggling with the interpretation. The only thing on the side of the gun rightists is the fact that the 2nd amendment is the 2nd amendment, also called the Bill of Rights for historical purposes (even though it doesn't say Bill of Rights in the actual document, if it matters to you at all what the document says). This fact by itself, when you overblow and idealise the concept of Bill of Rights, can get you the interpretation that you have, including the notion that there are no gun rights elsewhere in the world because they are not in the other countries' constitutions or their equivalent of Bill of Rights, while in reality other countries achieve the same effect with ordinary laws.

It's a great thing.....documentation......documentation of how words were defined back in the 18th Century.....which is what the Authors/Framers/Writers depended upon when the texts were written, & the debates were held regarding the aspects of  OUR  U.S. Constitution.

The first 10 Amendments were first called the 'Bill of Rights', written by James Madison, who used the 'Virginia Declaration of Rights', written by George Mason, as his guide, prior to being incorporated into the US Constitution.

Actually there were 12 Amendments, but only 10 were ratified by the People, & placed into the Constitution itself.

As far as what the words mean, & how they were used, I suggest that you peruse the plethora of documents (original 18th Century writings, & those written by Constitutional Scholars) on the subject, & lastly any judgments made by the US Supreme Court, which had their staffs do just that before coming to their final decisions.

Why?  Because the 18th Century meaning of words like  "REGULATED"  & what a  "MILITIA"  is, & who is a "MILITIA" are of supreme importance to the Framers 'original intent' when they were written, not what 'modernists' want them to mean in the 21st Century.

You will find that "REGULATED" did not mean restrictions placed on or to anything by a State of another Government body in the late 1700's.

You will also find that a "MILITIA" wasn't anything like a National Guard controlled by a State of Central Government back in the 1700's.

You might be surprised when you find that back in the 18th Century a "MILITIA" could be comprised of as little as a single individual, & had nothing to do with a collective, except when combined by, & under, one single leader who was voted as such by the other Militia.  The Militia individually owned their own firearms, were mostly self taught, & kept their firearms at home for personal use, & at the ready if ever called upon to put down Indian uprisings, & fend off foreign invaders as example.  The first modern U.S. National Guard didn't even exist until the 20th Century....1903.

In the end, the Supreme Court of the United States has the last word on what the Constitution means, & while Americans might debate their decisions, they are not subject to appeal by any lower Court or Governmental agency or body. The Law is as what the Supreme Court  defines determines it to be........period.
It's a great thing.....documentation......documentation of how words were defined back in the 18th Century.....which is what the Authors/Framers/Writers depended upon when the texts were written, & the debates were held regarding the aspects of the our U.S. Constitution. The first 10 Amendments were first called the Bill of Rights, written by James Madison, who used the Virginia Declaration of Rights, written by George Mason, prior to being incorporated into the US Constitution. Actually there were 12, but only 10 were ratified by the People & placed into the Constitution itself.

As far as what the words mean, & how they were used I suggest you peruse the plethora of documents on the subject, & lastly any judgments made by the US Supreme Court, which had their staffs do just that before coming to their decisions.

Why?  Because the 18th Century meaning of words like  "REGULATED"  & what a  "MILITIA"  is, & who is a "MILITIA" are of supreme importance to the Framers 'original intent' when they were written, not what modernists want them to mean in the 21st Century.

You will find that "REGULATED" did not mean restrictions placed on or to anything by a State of another Government body in the late 1700's.

You will also find that a "MILITIA" wasn't anything like a National Guard controlled by a State of Central Government back in the 1700's.

You might be surprised when you find that back in the 18th Century a "MILITIA" could be comprised of as little as a single individual, & had nothing to do with a collective, except when combined by, & under, one single leader who was voted as such by the other Militia.  The Militia individually owned their own firearms, were mostly self taught, & kept their firearms at home for personal use, & at the ready if ever called upon to put down Indian uprisings, & fend off foreign invaders as example.  The first modern U.S. National Guard didn't even exist until the 20th Century....1903.

In the end, the Supreme Court of the United States has the last word on what the Constitution means, & while Americans might debate their decisions, they are not subject to appeal by any lower Court or Governmental agency or body. The Law is as what the Supreme Court  defines determines it to be........period.
     In times of universal deceit, telling the honest truth is a revolutionary act.

Re: Gun Control - Should Ordinary Citizens Own, Carry, & Use Firearms?

Reply #1357 –
Quote from: SmileyFaze on
JFYI......a quick note of interest to those unfamiliar.....in the 18th Century the phrase "....well regulated...." meant well trained, not regulated by an entity.
Quote from: SmileyFaze on
You will find that "REGULATED" did not mean restrictions placed on or to anything by a State of another Government body in the late 1700's.
The basic premise holds ground: well-regulated means something like functioning correctly. But it seems like a slight leap to subsequently conclude that well functioning means without any restrictions.

Re: Gun Control - Should Ordinary Citizens Own, Carry, & Use Firearms?

Reply #1358 –
Quote from: SmileyFaze on
You might be surprised when you find that back in the 18th Century a "MILITIA" could be comprised of as little as a single individual, & had nothing to do with a collective...
This is the cherry in your drivel this time. Thanks for sharing.

Quote from: Frenzie on
The basic premise holds ground: well-regulated means something like functioning correctly. But it seems like a slight leap to subsequently conclude that well functioning means without any restrictions.
It seems so to you because you are a modernist. In 1700's, well regulated meant not regulated at all!

Re: Gun Control - Should Ordinary Citizens Own, Carry, & Use Firearms?

Reply #1359 –
Quote from: Frenzie on
Quote from: SmileyFaze on
JFYI......a quick note of interest to those unfamiliar.....in the 18th Century the phrase "....well regulated...." meant well trained, not regulated by an entity.
Quote from: SmileyFaze on
You will find that "REGULATED" did not mean restrictions placed on or to anything by a State of another Government body in the late 1700's.
The basic premise holds ground: well-regulated means something like functioning correctly. But it seems like a slight leap to subsequently conclude that well functioning means without any restrictions.

I understand your position perfectly, but in the end it's not my, or your, interpretations that matter, it's the actual text, & the Framers intentions, that are the Law.....first & foremost. If Regulation, as in restriction, or ordering of degrees placed on ownership, then there would have to be a Constitutional Amendment ratified which would be agreeable to the required number of States via the will of it's people. The process is spelled out in detail within the Constitution.
     In times of universal deceit, telling the honest truth is a revolutionary act.

Re: Gun Control - Should Ordinary Citizens Own, Carry, & Use Firearms?

Reply #1360 –
Quote from: ersi on
This is the cherry in your drivel this time. Thanks for sharing.
You didn't have any village militia in Estonia? Basically a couple of guys who sometimes come together to practice shooting for "defense". Meaning drinking spirits and maybe shooting at some bottles or trees assuming they weren't too busy drinking. Or in any case, that's what (Dutch) militia had degraded to by probably the mid-19th century at the latest, due to highly decreased relevance.[1]

One can imagine that in centuries prior, assembling the various village militias of the region, each of which consisted of only a few guys (plus with any luck another dozen in reserve), would be capable of mounting a meaningful resistance against a full 100-200 man company of Spaniards or French. One of the more famous examples that comes to mind, admittedly of typically better trained and armed city militias, is when in January of 1673 fewer than 400 combined militiamen from The Hague and Dordrecht chased off more than 500 French professional soldiers near Oudewater.[2]

You could quite validly argue that this regional militia is the "true" militia, but unlike the village militia the regional militia would only come together infrequently for obvious logistical reasons. The few-men militias constitute an important part of the larger well-regulated militia. I'm not entirely sure why we never put that in any constitutional documents. I suppose that back in the 16th century it was too self-evident, and by the mid-19th century too irrelevant.
1 I.e., what are you going to do against fast-loading cannons, volley guns, later followed by mitrailleuses and gatling guns, with your regular rifle that you probably mostly use for hunting anyway?↵
2 Of course the Battle of the Golden Spurs is by far the most famous example of all, but that was before firearms became commonplace.↵

Re: Gun Control - Should Ordinary Citizens Own, Carry, & Use Firearms?

Reply #1361 –
Quote from: Frenzie on
You didn't have any village militia in Estonia? Basically a couple of guys who sometimes come together to practice shooting for "defense".
Oh, we have our glorious history of those. And I don't mean "glorious" sarcastically. After WWII, we had what the people called forest brothers, the (Soviet) government called them bandits, and what you would call guerrilla. They were fighting the occupying Stalinist regime. Stalin could not conquer them. They were eventually gotten rid of by means of general amnesty - "please get out of the forest and settle down, nobody will be prosecuted".

But does this qualify as a well regulated militia (for the security of a free state)? Does this have much to do with overall gun rights? Those rights have been shifting here depending if the regime is Muscovite or provincial or if it's wartime or peacetime.

Quote from: Frenzie on
Meaning drinking spirits and maybe shooting at some bottles or trees assuming they weren't too busy drinking.
No, not that kind of militia.

Or actually, here we happen to make another connection to the word militia: Russian милиция, the equivalent of police. There were so many of them around (a la police state) that they occasionally had little to do, so the state had to occasionally campaign against drinking in their midst.

Quote from: Frenzie on
One can imagine that in centuries prior, assembling the various village militias of the region, each of which consisted of only a few guys (plus with any luck another dozen in reserve), would be capable of mounting a meaningful resistance against a full 100-200 man company of Spaniards or French.
Wow. Your history is gloriouser than mine. (Ethnic) Estonia(ns) were strictly under serfdom up to mid-19th century, basically declared as owned objects themselves and nigh deprived of all ownership over the house they lived in, the land they tilled, and the production of their own work. Any sort of armed organisation would be against them, not by them. When they occasionally armed themselves (which was approximately three times in 700 years), it was a rebellion that had to be quickly crushed.

Holy Constitution

Reply #1362 –
It's only me who's been noticing that you must interpret the U. S. Constitution just like a kind of Holy Bible?!

Re: Gun Control - Should Ordinary Citizens Own, Carry, & Use Firearms?

Reply #1363 –
Quote from: Barulheira on
It's only me who's been noticing that you must interpret the U. S. Constitution just like a kind of Holy Bible?!
No, the issues are somewhat similar in how some respond to them. Both were written in a particular time for a particular purpose.

Re: Gun Control - Should Ordinary Citizens Own, Carry, & Use Firearms?

Reply #1364 –
Quote from: ersi on
No, not that kind of militia.

Or actually, here we happen to make another connection to the word militia: Russian милиция, the equivalent of police. There were so many of them around (a la police state) that they occasionally had little to do, so the state had to occasionally campaign against drinking in their midst.
I've been using militia for the sake of communication. In Dutch the kind of militia under discussion is called a shooter's guild (schuttersgilde) or stadswacht (city guard). I'd say the word militie (militia) itself has connotations closer to something like FARC or Hezbollah. Concretely, an unruly (explicitly not well-regulated) group of militarized types. To refer back to that English text from the 1700s I quoted on the previous page, an armed mob.

Re: Gun Control - Should Ordinary Citizens Own, Carry, & Use Firearms?

Reply #1365 –
Quote from: Frenzie on
In Dutch the kind of militia under discussion is called a shooter's guild (schuttersgilde) or stadswacht (city guard).
Wouldn't this be radically distinct from the "village militia" as you put it earlier? Because, in Estonia at least, there have always been stark contrasts between urban vs rural, the general order of things mostly being dominated by the rural affairs up to 1960's or so. Things like "guild" and "city guard" would have no jurisdiction whatsoever in the countryside.

Quote from: Frenzie on
I'd say the word militie (militia) itself has connotations closer to something like FARC or Hezbollah. Concretely, an unruly (explicitly not well-regulated) group of militarized types. To refer back to that English text from the 1700s I quoted on the previous page, an armed mob.
FARC or Hezbollah would be more commonly perhaps guerrilla (edit:or paramilitary).  Occasionally pretty well organised, such as in Mexico in the Wild West era, both a genuine threat and a marked influence to the organisation of the state over there.

And Hamas easily turned into an actual political party in Palestine, because besides shooting at whoever they call the bad guys, they always had their charitable social activities to support the common folks, which ensures them grassroots support and engagement other than shooting.

Re: Gun Control - Should Ordinary Citizens Own, Carry, & Use Firearms?

Reply #1366 –
A Militia of one is still a Militia.......Until that one man Militia meets up with another Militia of one....then they become a Militia of two.....this can continue until there becomes a need for them to decide upon a leader, & that leader becomes the leader of all the Militias.

"I ask you sir, who is the Militia? They consist now of the whole people." --- George Mason

Remember, it all started with a Militia of one.....

Ersi, like it or not.....& you won't......agree with it or not....& you won't.........you do have that right, but know full well that whatever the Second Amendment is meant to say will ultimately be whatever the Supreme Court of the United States finally decides it says (which it already has done), & no man, much less any government on the face of this Earth can appeal a United States Supreme Court decision.....which is final & absolute....period.









     In times of universal deceit, telling the honest truth is a revolutionary act.

Re: Gun Control - Should Ordinary Citizens Own, Carry, & Use Firearms?

Reply #1367 –
Quote from: ersi on
Wouldn't this be radically distinct from the "village militia" as you put it earlier? Because, in Estonia at least, there have always been stark contrasts between urban vs rural, the general order of things mostly being dominated by the rural affairs up to 1960's or so. Things like "guild" and "city guard" would have no jurisdiction whatsoever in the countryside.
I'd say that the name guild is a misnomer, in this instance a synonym for organization or association. A guild is an association of professionals, of artisans and tradesmen. By contrast, the shooter's "guild" consists of volunteers who hold other jobs. It was also a charitable organization… like Hamas, I suppose, though I hate to think of it that way. But you correctly inferred that these terms originated in cities. The current shooter's guilds find their origin in Flemish and Brabantic cities in the 13th or 14th century,[1] while shooteries (schutterijen) without the "guild" probably didn't become commonplace in the countryside until the 16th century.

The shootery (town militia) principle as we know it today may have originated in Flanders and Brabant, but besides spreading to the rest of the low countries and the countryside, it also quickly spread to economically connected regions like present-day Western Germany, Northern France, and Northern Italy, as well as remote regions like Austria and Poland.

I think the English/American militia is mostly a later parallel development without a direct connection to the Flemish shootery tradition, with a possible exception in New Netherland, although given the intense economic contact between England and Holland/Flanders they would've certainly been aware of it as a curious habit from across the Channel. Judging by a quick perusal of Wikipedia militias were mostly a thing for the English colonies, America in particular. For defense against Native Americans and slaves, mind you, not against the English. That didn't come up for another century. :P
1 Obviously the whole guild system itself goes back much further.↵

Re: Gun Control - Should Ordinary Citizens Own, Carry, & Use Firearms?

Reply #1368 –
@Frenzie Okay, so militia is a well-established institution in the Netherlands and England, with roots in the middle ages. Over here it's much more sporadic or spontaneous. And modern.

During Estonia's independence war (as part of the First World War), the army was "invited" by means of (ethnic-based) nationwide public announcements. Since there were no pre-existing Estonian state institutions (because of the Czarist imperial rule that had prolonged serfdom for as long as possible), there could be no compulsion to answer the call nor any viable promises to lure anyone to join. Still, a large gang of self-equipped Estonian brigands got together, numerous and determined enough so that it could be called an army, and ethnic Estonian officers from the recently collapsed Czarist army began leading them.

The manner of organisation and symbolism reflected closely the ethnic (Baltic-)German Bürgerwehr and Landeswehr which were established at the same time with the goal of making (keeping) Estonia and Latvia as German provinces/colonies. Most of the fighting occurred between Germans and Estonians, and Germans were defeated. And Bolsheviks had a front in Estonia and Latvia for a while, but were also defeated. The first international recognition of the Bolshevist state came from Estonia by means of Tartu peace treaty, as Bolsheviks were alarmed by the defeats and decided to secure those fronts. The same treaty gave Estonia the first recognition of independence.

After the successful war of independence, its veterans formed the core of the civic/national/defence guard/league/corps (those are all occasional variant translations of Kaitseliit), a broad popular paramilitary organisation that focused on drills, shooting practices and (survival-style) camping, often together with the real state-equipped standing army. In 1940, the members of this highly national-minded league were enormously pissed at the way Estonia lost its independence to the Bolshevik state, without a single shot ordered to be fired. Anti-Soviet guerrilla (forest brothers) that operated since 1944 to mid-fifties, also came from this league/corps.

This is pretty much the entire history of Estonian militia/paramilitary. Upon regaining independence, an organisation with the same name was established (or, they say, the same organisation was re-established), but it's only a pale shadow of what it used to be.

Re: Gun Control - Should Ordinary Citizens Own, Carry, & Use Firearms?

Reply #1369 –
We had a militia at the wonderful fascist times, the Legion.
They marched very well at the nazi stile and never have done nothing but that.
I wish that the American constitution could be applied to us, bring back the militia, it's our right.  :lol:
A matter of attitude.

Re: Gun Control - Should Ordinary Citizens Own, Carry, & Use Firearms?

Reply #1370 –
Quote from: ersi on
You should pay more attention to how lawyers use the word "idea". They use it to turn things on their head.
Lawyers will say anything, that's their job. :P

Quote from: ersi on
So you are saying that the "security of a free State" is about the security of an idea?
No. I'm saying a "Free State" differs from just a State or Governing Establishment. It speaks to the type of State. The idea of what free is can be defined by a collection of principles in this case. (Namely the Bill of Rights.)

Quote from: ersi on
Does not limit what exactly? It says "well regulated" there, doesn't it?
The Bill of Rights does not limit the rights of people - It does the exact opposite and defines limits on the government. At no point can the wording be taken to limit the people's rights. So "well regulated" means for that reason, for sure, but doesn't limit it to that alone. This really isn't that hard to understand.

Quote from: ersi on
And as it is, aren't gun rights regulated by law in your country? Particularly in the sense of being restricted to certain types of guns and limiting their use to certain types of situations.
By a later amendment and, courtesy of the 10th, by the States. Causality. I don't understand why people take it as a static document. I get Smiley's reason. There are just some misled to believe the Constitution is some sort of holy document despite the fact laws have changed aspects of its meaning over the centuries. They tend to be quite vocal. Most consider it what it is - a framework. Something to build off of. The Bill of Rights was added because some felt the government needed clearly defined limits. People forget it wasn't included originally. But was added to clearly define rights not limit them in any way. Limits came later.

Quote from: ersi on
when you overblow and idealise the concept of Bill of Rights[...]
And this seems to be where non-Americans stop. I sometimes wonder if other countries just don't have anything they stand for. I mean are human rights not important? No one considers they should be defended? That's really all there is to it. A list of what rights a free person should expect... If someone tries to infringe you should resist. And yes, our own government does do it. That's why you hear it brought up so often, to debate whether or not policy change is worth the perceived danger. The Bill of Rights is a warning from people who left European governments of the time behind.

I've on multiple occasions tried to explain American interpretations of our laws. Every time I get some push back about how over idealistic and silly it all is. So, WTF is so great about other governments? What makes having defining principles in government so silly? Do you really not have any? If you do, what are they? I may agree it's a better philosophy. I don't have the time to micro analyse every government. Some sort of starting point would help. I usually get stuff like "we have a wider democracy[tm rjhowie]". Okay, a solid belief, but unsubstantiated.

 ...   
Quote from: jax on
Guns are the citizen's protection against bad government (as argued by @ensbb3 )
To be fair - I was mainly giving the reason the second amendment exists. Despite any over zealous proclamations, no one is gonna stand up to the government with force and win. The concept is outdated. Although it's not entirely impossible for an unforeseen future. Best to never rule anything out - Which is the whole point, I think.

Re: Gun Control - Should Ordinary Citizens Own, Carry, & Use Firearms?

Reply #1371 –
Quote from: ensbb3 on
The Bill of Rights does not limit the rights of people - It does the exact opposite and defines limits on the government. At no point can the wording be taken to limit the people's rights.
So blind faith in the constitution is not exclusive to SF alone. You seriously think the government declares unlimited rights to people and limits itself at the same time. Aren't the people and government supposed to interact and thus both are logically limited to certain roles?

Quote from: ensbb3 on
And this seems to be where non-Americans stop. I sometimes wonder if other countries just don't have anything they stand for. I mean are human rights not important? No one considers they should be defended? That's really all there is to it.
Over here we are a bit more realistic. Rights, human or otherwise, always have limits. Having rights is not a matter of a (single) piece of paper. It's a matter of reaffirming them as appropriate, in both word and deed which are two different things. We don't look only at what the authorities say, we also look at what they do.

Indoctrinating yourself that there's that constitution and therefore you have rights is very very strange. But it's probably to be expected when you grow up pleading allegiance to a flag every day. For example in Soviet Union schools there were no oaths to be sworn. Not daily, not even yearly. And some say that was a totalitarian country.

Re: Gun Control - Should Ordinary Citizens Own, Carry, & Use Firearms?

Reply #1372 –
The only one labeling me a constitutionalist is you. I've said what it meant and given a glimpse into how that's changed. If you infer anything else it's on you.

Quote from: ersi on
Rights, human or otherwise, always have limits. Having rights is not a matter of a (single) piece of paper. It's a matter of reaffirming them as appropriate, in both word and deed which are two different things.
That's literally what I've been saying has happened over the last 200 years here.


Quote from: ersi on
Indoctrinating yourself that there's that constitution and therefore you have rights is very very strange. But it's probably to be expected when you grow up pleading allegiance to a flag every day. For example in Soviet Union schools there were no oaths to be sworn. Not daily, not even yearly. And some say that was a totalitarian country.
No matter what I simply get a pejorative narrative. Using semantics to maintain your own conclusions seems like some sort of oath of yours. I get it. You don't agree with anything American. (Slow clap) Good for you.

If that's all this is, I have to say, I just don't give a fuck. You give me no reason to.

*edit* usual grammatical clean up. :-\

Re: Gun Control - Should Ordinary Citizens Own, Carry, & Use Firearms?

Reply #1373 –
Quote from: ensbb3 on
I've said what it meant and given a glimpse into how that's changed.
But you did not give any glimpse, no news whatsoever. Instead it came across like a nationalist belief system, which has been up here since the first post. It contained no historical insights. Earlier you have surely seen that we are very familiar here with both actual history of US constitution and with the nationalism that surrounds it. In meticulous detail.

You are good at one thing: Hiding your personal opinion. I only have a vague hunch what it is.

Re: Gun Control - Should Ordinary Citizens Own, Carry, & Use Firearms?

Reply #1374 –
Quote from: ersi on
But it's probably to be expected when you grow up pleading allegiance to a flag every day. For example in Soviet Union schools there were no oaths to be sworn. Not daily, not even yearly.
You didn't? Huh, interesting. To me that had always been a thing I knew they did in Nazi Germany, which I later learned was inspired by the US (where the practice apparently continues to this day). I guess I always just kind of assumed you had to swear allegiance to the communist paradise or some such, insofar as I gave it any thought.