close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Nightmare in Ohio

Discussion in 'The Okie Corral' started by fowl intent, Oct 7, 2012.

  1. rockapede

    rockapede

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2009
    Messages:
    1,682
    Likes Received:
    327
    To your first, yes. Your point?

    To your second, again, your point? Several million dead people (many of whom were very, very religious) in WW2 alone had natural rights as well. In a practical sense, it was meaningless.

    I still can't figure out how your post gives any evidence to this:

    The invitation for you to provide a shred of evidence that I believe defense against tyrants is wrong is still open.
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2012
  2. rockapede

    rockapede

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2009
    Messages:
    1,682
    Likes Received:
    327
    So, if we're looking for the "true" interpretation of the Constitution, does that mean women or elderly men have no right to keep and bear arms? Please understand, at least where you're concerned, I'm not trying to be confrontational. However, issues of language and the 18th century meanings of words are one very good justification for the USSC.
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2012

  3. alwaysshootin

    alwaysshootin

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2005
    Messages:
    3,758
    Likes Received:
    6
    Nacke? Winston?

    If an American president/king/dictator, makes a presidential order/law, that no American can posses a firearm, of any kind, and, the supreme court says it's constitutional, is it?

    I say no! That is my point. Any interpretation, of the Constitution, other than what it says, is the true radical. It is an easy read, and straight forward.

    As far as the very religious, in WW2, the only reason it was meaningless, as you say, is because they were disarmed. I think it speaks volumes!
     
  4. certifiedfunds

    certifiedfunds Tewwowist

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2008
    Messages:
    59,470
    Likes Received:
    12,096
    You mean, can you use speech to harm another without consequence?

    Not surprised to see you come down on the side of the heavy handed state but that's just weak.
     
  5. PEC-Memphis

    PEC-Memphis Scottish Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2006
    Messages:
    5,939
    Likes Received:
    1,783
    Location:
    Doh ?
    No, I'm not a big hunter, but even I know that hunting firearms are generally not loaded until in position to hunt, such in the duck blind or deer stand.

    Now hunting other types of game such as quail, pheasant or rabbit - ie. mobile rather than stationary - a shotgun is used with small shot which is generally ineffective for SD at distances greater than "room" distances (and arguably not even then).

    Other mobile hunting with a rifle - such as rabbit, squirrel, raccoon, etc. - is generally with a small caliber rifle such as a .22; again a generally ineffective SD choice.

    I don't suppose I even need to address bow hunting or muzzleloader seasons, as it would seem obvious why carrying a handgun for SD would be needed.

    A handgun in a holster can be safely carried loaded and can be deployed, in some instances, more effectively than a long gun.

    Additionally, a handgun caliber is sometimes a better choice for killing wounded medium sized game at close range.
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2012
  6. rockapede

    rockapede

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2009
    Messages:
    1,682
    Likes Received:
    327
    If the USSC upholds a law as constitutional, that ruling is absolutely the law of the land until it is changed via one of the constitutionally prescribed mechanisms. That's the way it is, whether you like it or not.

    Several of us in this very thread have been having a discussion about how the Constitution is NOT always straightforward. What you meant to say was that it's straightforward according to your particular worldview and bias, but that's not objective. People pull the same stunt with regard to the Bible and it's no more valid in this case.

    If you seriously think Jews packing small arms would have prevented the Holocaust, you're deluded.
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2012
  7. MacChiroCtr

    MacChiroCtr

    Joined:
    May 27, 2011
    Messages:
    123
    Likes Received:
    1
    It's a good point, and very open to debate. When they wrote what they did, they did it as products of their time. When we read "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal..." I really don't think they meant it as a slight to women in the least... it's just how it was done in that time and place. And that may also be why the preamble to the 2nd amendment was not the only part of it, as in addition to the militia clause it states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". No restrictions there to women or the elderly... or to children for that matter.
     
  8. rockapede

    rockapede

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2009
    Messages:
    1,682
    Likes Received:
    327
    Fair enough :cool:. I'm in total agreement with your interpretation, I just take issue with people not smart or honest enough to admit it's possible to interpret it differently.
     
  9. Dragoon44

    Dragoon44 Unfair Facist Lifetime Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2005
    Messages:
    19,947
    Likes Received:
    4,107
    What is weak is insisting on a personal absolutist interpretation of one right then switch and maintain that other rights are not to be interpreted in the same absolute manner.

    By your own response here you clearly recognize that rights can have restrictions on them that are not enumerated or even hinted at in the wording of the BOR itself.

    It is also worth remembering (Or if you didn't realize it to begin with, discovering) that as implemented by the Founding Fathers the BOR placed Restriction on the Federal Govt not the States. Until the passage of the 14th amendment in 1878 NONE of the BOR was held to apply to the States.
     
  10. Gallium

    Gallium CLM

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2003
    Messages:
    28,685
    Likes Received:
    17

    That is not what he said/implied. From what I gather, he refers to the punishments available to remedy those who have been slandered/etc, not the (any) restrictions which may be in place to prevent the slanderous act in the 1st place.

    Because really, there are very few mechanisms in place to "prevent" abuse of free speech, when compared to the proliferation of the means of free speech.


    - not arguing anything else. :)
     
  11. DanaT

    DanaT Pharaoh

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2005
    Messages:
    26,224
    Likes Received:
    4,036
    Location:
    CO & Baden –Württemberg
    As an example, go back and look how the meaning of "gay" has change in to 200 years.

    I think if you say

    "He is a gay man" 200 years ago it would be taken in a completely different manner than it is today.

    I highly suspect that the founding fathers would have nothing against a gay man but would have a lot against a homosexual man.
     
  12. certifiedfunds

    certifiedfunds Tewwowist

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2008
    Messages:
    59,470
    Likes Received:
    12,096
    It is also worth remembering (Or if you didn't realize it to begin with, discovering), that the original purpose of the first amendment had nothing to do with being able to say whatever you wanted, whenever you wanted. The purpose was to prevent the government and public officials from shielding themselves from criticism, to remove the fear of seditious libel.

    In that context, there is no restriction.

    So we either have incorporation or we don't.

    The appropriate analogy would be to compare whether or not Ohio can require a license to permit one to freely criticize the government in the same manner it requires one to have a license to have a loaded handgun under the seat in one's car.

    Clearly it can't do the former to 1st Amendment rights but you support it's power to do so with 2nd Amendment rights.
     
  13. bmoore

    bmoore

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    Messages:
    4,376
    Likes Received:
    7
    Location:
    Under a regime.
    Delete. Not worth it.
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2012
  14. certifiedfunds

    certifiedfunds Tewwowist

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2008
    Messages:
    59,470
    Likes Received:
    12,096
  15. Dragoon44

    Dragoon44 Unfair Facist Lifetime Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2005
    Messages:
    19,947
    Likes Received:
    4,107

    Those "remedies" are laws which define and restrict the limits of "freedom of speech" and "freedom of the Press".

    That is clearly outside of an absolutist interpretation of the 1st amendment. To maintain that the first amendment is not absolute but the second is reveals an inconsistent interpretation methodology which is clearly based on self interest rather than sound interpretation principles or the historical record.
     
  16. Dragoon44

    Dragoon44 Unfair Facist Lifetime Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2005
    Messages:
    19,947
    Likes Received:
    4,107
    And the 2nd amendment had nothing to do with carrying what you want, when you want, however you want, wherever you want.

    That is because you don't employ an absolutist interpretation method for that right.

    That claim has absolutely NO historical standing. The SCOTUS at no time since the passage of the 14th amendment adopted such a view. Instead portions of the BOR (including piecemeal incorporation of only parts of many of the amendments rather than the entire amendment.) have been incorporated during a period of now over 130 years since the passage of the 14th amendment.

    Again your all or nothing claims and views won't withstand scrutiny. depending on how, when and where the citizen chooses to express his criticism he can indeed be required to obtain a permit before doing so.
     
  17. Dragoon44

    Dragoon44 Unfair Facist Lifetime Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2005
    Messages:
    19,947
    Likes Received:
    4,107
    Noah Webster began his work on his dictionary in 1808 completing it and publishing it in 1828.

    The meaning of the word regulated.

    Regulated

    REG'ULATED, pp. Adjusted by rule, method or forms; put in good order; subjected to rules or restrictions.
     
  18. G29Reload

    G29Reload Tread Lightly

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2009
    Messages:
    13,286
    Likes Received:
    366
    You win a Snickers bar.

    Correctomundo. The BOR is a set of absolute minmums that apply to all states because they are the rights of individual.

    Otherwise you could see CA ban Catholics, massachusetts say no one can even own a gun, MN could make newspapers illegal, arkansas could compel someone to incriminate himself at trial, etc.

    No.They.Can't.

    And the Tenth says all other things are left to the states or the peeps.
     
  19. G29Reload

    G29Reload Tread Lightly

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2009
    Messages:
    13,286
    Likes Received:
    366
    In the parlance of the day, regulated meant "practiced" as applied to troop formations.

    So a well regulated militia was one that practiced and trained.

    Militias are both unorganized and organized. The unorganized milita would be average citizens.

    In order the that the unorganized militia, the people be well regulated, their rights to should not be infringed or you're gonna be restricting their practice time. Folks need to be able to go out and shoot regularly.
     
  20. dbcooper

    dbcooper

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2011
    Messages:
    1,138
    Likes Received:
    2
    Regulated= Supplied