Beliefsbeliefsrightsgunsgodconstitution

Sat Aug 20, 2016, 03:01 PM

does the right to bear arms originate with the constitution or with a divinity?

i'm not sure i understand why the iraqis, or the afghans, were not disarmed as a first order of business after initial american success in the theatre.

23 replies, 1768 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 23 replies Author Time Post
Reply does the right to bear arms originate with the constitution or with a divinity? (Original post)
rampartb Aug 2016 OP
Da Mannn Aug 2016 #1
rampartb Aug 2016 #10
Da Mannn Aug 2016 #11
safestuffer Aug 2016 #2
JJ667 Aug 2016 #3
FORD Aug 2016 #4
nolidad Aug 2016 #9
Salaam Aug 2016 #19
soosin60 Aug 2016 #5
batcat Aug 2016 #7
Duke Lacrosse Aug 2016 #6
BotherMeTomorrow Aug 2016 #8
JaimeBondoJr Aug 2016 #12
Smoke Aug 2016 #13
nolidad Aug 2016 #14
Tovera Aug 2016 #15
rampartb Aug 2016 #16
Tovera Aug 2016 #17
rampartb Aug 2016 #18
Tovera Aug 2016 #20
Currentsitguy Aug 2016 #21
rampartb Aug 2016 #22
Currentsitguy Aug 2016 #23

Response to rampartb (Original post)

Sat Aug 20, 2016, 03:07 PM

1. They are rights "natural to man." Rights that govts cannot take away.

Civics 101. I was required to take that class.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Da Mannn (Reply #1)

Sat Aug 20, 2016, 07:19 PM

10. natural rights are regulated and "taken away" on a daily basis

freedom of speech is restrained by a gag order, the native american church are forbidden peyote.

does that mean that by disarming the german citizens in 1945 we violated their natural rights?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rampartb (Reply #10)

Sat Aug 20, 2016, 07:21 PM

11. Are you just looking for excuses to nullify a constitutional right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rampartb (Original post)

Sat Aug 20, 2016, 03:07 PM

2. The right to self defense is a natural right.

"Natural rights are those that are not dependent on the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable (i.e., rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws)."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rampartb (Original post)

Sat Aug 20, 2016, 03:19 PM

3. Political decision

The politics of the region are such that you can't ally with the population if you disarm the population. The US would lose the support of the general population and the local leaders, forcing the US to act as a pure hostile military occupation. In the long run it probably would have been a better choice but the US government always wanted to pretend to be allied with the population and that occupation would be a short term thing.

As for your more general question, it's a social contract thing. Situations change over time and no single written list can be complete, final or comprehensive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rampartb (Original post)

Sat Aug 20, 2016, 03:36 PM

4. The way the NRA misinteprets the 2nd amendment originates from.....

 


...the late "Fat Tony" Scalia.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FORD (Reply #4)

Sat Aug 20, 2016, 06:22 PM

9. Maybe you should read the founders and learn history. I will help:

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms"
Philadelphia Federal Gazette
June 18, 1789, Pg. 2, Col. 2
Article on the Bill of Rights

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"
Samuel Adams
quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington
First President of the United States

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
Thomas Paine

no go, learn and be benighted no longer!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #9)

Mon Aug 29, 2016, 12:58 PM

19. There are actually two militias referenced.

The organized, well-regulated militia, and the unorganized militia, comprising, as you referenced, the whole of the people.

But this whole of the people did not literally mean every American because it excluded people of color, the Native Americans, women, and indentured whites. So it was not, and was not intended to be, a so-called "natural right".

The Founders never intended every American to have the right to keep and bear arms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rampartb (Original post)

Sat Aug 20, 2016, 03:41 PM

5. purely from the constitution

god doesn't want you to have guns

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to soosin60 (Reply #5)

Sat Aug 20, 2016, 04:36 PM

7. Killing in legitimate self defense is allowed in the Bible. ...


Many people apply the sixth commandment in the Bible to the question of self-defense. The difficulty in answering this question is due in part to different translations. The King James Version translation of this commandment says we are not to kill (Exodus 20:13, also see Deuteronomy 5:17). This translation of the commandment would mean that God does not approve of the use of deadly force to defend oneself regardless of the circumstances. The NKJV translation, however, as well as most modern translations (such as the NIV, NASB, TEV and others), translate verse 13 of Exodus 20 as "You shall not murder." Jesus confirmed the latter translation of the commandment when he said we are not to murder (Matthew 19:18).
http://www.biblestudy.org/question/what-does-bible-say-about-self-defense.html

Matthew 19:16-19 King James Version (KJV)

16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?

17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,

19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.


Obviously God also was not opposed to killing in warfare. Read what happened after the walls of Jericho fell.

Joshua 6:20,21 King James Version (KJV)

20 So the people shouted when the priests blew with the trumpets: and it came to pass, when the people heard the sound of the trumpet, and the people shouted with a great shout, that the wall fell down flat, so that the people went up into the city, every man straight before him, and they took the city.

21 And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.


Swords were used in those days for both self defense and warfare. Therefore it would seem that God is not opposed to the ownership of weapons. In today's world the handgun is the equivalent of a sword.

Jesus himself mentioned owning a sword.

Luke 22:36 King James Version

Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rampartb (Original post)

Sat Aug 20, 2016, 04:10 PM

6. Neither. It's a natural right of all living things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rampartb (Original post)

Sat Aug 20, 2016, 04:39 PM

8. Probably it hasn't anything to do with the origins of the

right to bear arms (whatever those might be). It's probably just hard to disarm an occupied populace that hates you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rampartb (Original post)

Sun Aug 21, 2016, 02:56 PM

12. The Bill of Rights DOESN'T inform me of what I CAN do; it limits what the GOVT can do to me.

Fuck. How is it so many people do not know that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaimeBondoJr (Reply #12)

Sun Aug 21, 2016, 06:49 PM

13. How is it so many people do not know that?

They ignore it because it doesn't fit the narrative

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Smoke (Reply #13)

Mon Aug 22, 2016, 06:26 AM

14. Why do they not know it?

Because more and more it is not being taught in our public schools.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rampartb (Original post)

Mon Aug 29, 2016, 09:31 AM

15. Neither.

The language of the amendment makes it (sort of) clear that the Framers considered the right to be pre-existing, a "natural right." The Constitution doesn't create the right, it merely recognizes and protects it.

There are no such things as gods.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tovera (Reply #15)

Mon Aug 29, 2016, 10:06 AM

16. that natural right did not deter the framers from denying firearms to the native tribes

or to the slaves or the philipinos or citizens of the defeated axis,

why weren't the iraqis and afghans disarmed?

no need to answer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rampartb (Reply #16)

Mon Aug 29, 2016, 10:34 AM

17. Indeed it didn't.

Although I suspect none of the framers had a whole lot of say in the matter of disarming the Axis...and while they had probably heard of that Spanish colony halfway around the world, our involvement with the Philippines also happened long after they were dead.

As for disarming Afghans or Iraqis, the reason would be that regardless of whether or not there was a desire to do so, the task would have been largely impossible, for much the same reasons disarming the US population would be: massive numbers of weapons...and an entire country (filled with non-cooperative people) to hide them in.

For the record, I don't consider the concept of "natural rights" to be valid. Rights are a human cognitive concept, not natural phemomena.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tovera (Reply #17)

Mon Aug 29, 2016, 11:06 AM

18. disarming a populace, even the usa, is not impossible

it merely takes a few generations of sufficient ruthlessness. the same guys who claim it to be impossible are most concerned that "the commies disarmed the citizens then did all these terrible things" or that "obammy will take our guns .

"natural rights," if they exist at all, can only be useful under the protection of a stable government powerful enough to impose the rule of law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rampartb (Reply #18)

Mon Aug 29, 2016, 02:17 PM

20. Perhaps not actually impossible, but effectively so.

85 million (very conservative estimate) gun owners, a highly debatable percentage of which absolutely will resist. 800,000 armed law enforcement officers with arrest powers nationwide...and that's assuming all would carry out such orders, which is extremely unlikely. The math is obvious...

Use the military? Even assuming a constitutional change to alter posse comitatus, such a plan runs up against the problem of refusal to obey such orders. The military these days is alarmingly (to a far-leftist like me) conservative and pro-gun. Some would obey confiscation orders. Some would not (and would resist). And even without such defection/resistance, a modern military can be stymied, as we've seen plenty of evidence of in our lifetimes.

So yeah...disarming the US populace is theoretically possible...but under the conditions which actually prevail, enormously unlikely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rampartb (Reply #18)

Wed Aug 31, 2016, 10:14 AM

21. Wille zur Macht much?

What you say smacks of the "Will to Power". I think it best we not go down that road again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Currentsitguy (Reply #21)

Wed Aug 31, 2016, 12:56 PM

22. i didn't say that it was necessary, or even desirable here at home

merely possible.

is wille zur macht aversion a good reason not to disarm hostile sunni warriors recently shocked and awed into submission?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rampartb (Reply #22)

Wed Aug 31, 2016, 01:39 PM

23. In time of war

It only makes sense to disarm your potential enemies. That's kind of the point, however tangential to the original OP it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Beliefsbeliefsrightsgunsgodconstitution