Ohio Chatter
Ohio Chatter

Forums

All Threads Serious Business Sports Politics Archive Pick 'ems
Log In Create Account

CNN Democratic Debate

Home ▸ Archive ▸ Politics ▸ CNN Democratic Debate
cruiser_96's avatar

cruiser_96

Senior Member

7,536 posts
Oct 16, 2015 7:30 PM
isadore: the problem with this analogy, as will all analogies, is that eventually it breaks down. In this particular case it breaks down due to the fact that owning or operating a car is not guaranteed under the U.S. constitution. However,[FONT=.Helvetica NeueUI] "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."[/FONT]
Oct 16, 2015 7:30pm
I

isadore

Senior Member

7,762 posts
Oct 16, 2015 7:37 PM
cruiser_96;1757336 wrote:isadore: the problem with this analogy, as will all analogies, is that eventually it breaks down. In this particular case it breaks down due to the fact that owning or operating a car is not guaranteed under the U.S. constitution. However, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
why don't you quote the whole amendment so it includes the real reason why arms are allowed. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State. And you who sets the regulation for the militia, the legislature.
Oct 16, 2015 7:37pm
HitsRus's avatar

HitsRus

Senior Member

9,206 posts
Oct 16, 2015 8:44 PM
The logic in Isadore statement breaks down because you can take an unlicensed, uninsured car off your property AS LONG AS YOU DON'T OPERATE IT. (e.g. via trailer or towing) Hence, you can take your firearm off your property to transport it, or to use it on other private property where you have the owner's permission. If you operate it in a public area you COULD require a license...e.g. concealed carry permit. Open carry is debatable.
Oct 16, 2015 8:44pm
Heretic's avatar

Heretic

Son of the Sun

18,820 posts
Oct 16, 2015 10:01 PM
HitsRus;1757341 wrote:The logic in Isadore statement breaks down because you can take an unlicensed, uninsured car off your property AS LONG AS YOU DON'T OPERATE IT. (e.g. via trailer or towing) Hence, you can take your firearm off your property to transport it, or to use it on other private property where you have the owner's permission. If you operate it in a public area you COULD require a license...e.g. concealed carry permit. Open carry is debatable.
You only really needed the bolded part.
Oct 16, 2015 10:01pm
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Oct 17, 2015 5:55 AM
isadore;1757315 wrote:gosh a ruddies so any time a person takes his gun off his property he could be arrested unless he and the gun were registered and insured. sounds good.
At least we can agree that you were wrong regarding the requirement to be registered/licensed and insured. Maye we can get to the point of understanding that owing a gun is an unalienable right while owning car isn't.

Maybe we can all form our own militia's next. A militia of one to fend of the government.
Oct 17, 2015 5:55am
Uz2Bon36's avatar

Uz2Bon36

Banned

1,135 posts
Oct 18, 2015 4:34 AM
Spock;1756923 wrote:Bernie is a hypocrite.....like he doesn't take millions from these 1%ers
link?
Oct 18, 2015 4:34am
G

gut

Senior Member

15,058 posts
Oct 18, 2015 7:25 PM
pretty good recap:
[video=youtube_share;pfmwGAd1L-o][/video]
Oct 18, 2015 7:25pm
I

isadore

Senior Member

7,762 posts
Oct 18, 2015 8:45 PM
Con_Alma;1757373 wrote:At least we can agree that you were wrong regarding the requirement to be registered/licensed and insured. Maye we can get to the point of understanding that owing a gun is an unalienable right while owning car isn't.

Maybe we can all form our own militia's next. A militia of one to fend of the government.
The 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Amendment does not establish an “unalienable” individual right to gun ownership. That was not its purpose. It was put in place to frugally arm a militia, so as to alleviate the need for a standing army. That “well regulated” militia was to be under the control of the Congress which had already been given the power in the Constitution to call it out, to organize it, arm and discipline it. The President had been made its commander in chief. As our nation realized it has become necessary to establish a permanent standing army the purpose of the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Amendment has disappeared. The 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Amendment like the 3[SUP]rd[/SUP] and 7[SUP]th[/SUP] are anachronisms. In the future the Heller decision will be shown to be embarrassment like Dred Scott and Plessey. Either to be changed by Amendment process or Court reversal. While the number of guns increase, the number of gun owners as a percentage of the population has taken a precipitous decrease. At some time as legally obtained guns are used in one mass killing atrocity after another we will get a reaction.
Oct 18, 2015 8:45pm
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Oct 18, 2015 9:29 PM
...as I suggested...individually we join a militia so that the "unalienable" right will continue to apply. I'm in! I'll be driving an unlicensed, uninsured vehicle on our families land which I share with my siblings.
Oct 18, 2015 9:29pm
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Oct 18, 2015 9:30 PM
isadore;1757760 wrote:... At some time as legally obtained guns are used in one mass killing atrocity after another we will get a reaction.
This could very well be true and it it may be sooner rather than later...but it's not today.
Oct 18, 2015 9:30pm
I

isadore

Senior Member

7,762 posts
Oct 18, 2015 9:37 PM
Con_Alma;1757766 wrote:...as I suggested...individually we join a militia so that the "unalienable" right will continue to apply. I'm in! I'll be driving an unlicensed, uninsured vehicle on our families land which I share with my siblings.
it was not an "unalienable" right, but an obligation placed on males of a certain age who did not a religious objection to it
Oct 18, 2015 9:37pm
HitsRus's avatar

HitsRus

Senior Member

9,206 posts
Oct 18, 2015 10:26 PM
The 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Amendment does not establish an “unalienable” individual right to gun ownership. That was not its purpose. It was put in place to frugally arm a militia, so as to alleviate the need for a standing army. That “well regulated” militia was to be under the control of the Congress which had already been given the power in the Constitution to call it out, to organize it, arm and discipline it. The President had been made its commander in chief. As our nation realized it has become necessary to establish a permanent standing army the purpose of the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Amendment has disappeared
My God, where on earth did you get such an "interpretation"? You should be embarrassed to have posted such nonsense, that is devoid of any historical fact or context.

Number one, the term "regulated" in the context of the day means "properly trained and drilled". The term militia refers to a call up army under local control.
The militia was to serve two purposes, to repel foreign invaders and provide local defense, as well as to provide deterrence to a usurpation of power by the federal government and its standing army, that they(the founders) were in the process of creating. Both the Federalists, and the Anti-Federalists feared a day when that could happen and they were unanimous that the people not be disarmed. This is based on the events of the times...the kingdoms of Europe had used disarmament to extend the subjucation of their populations...and indeed the British tried exactly that in the colonies in the pre-revolutionary war years as they tried to get them to bend to the will of the King. It is also based on philosophies of the Enlightenment....(Locke, Hume etc) ... that the first law of Nature(human) is the right of self protection. This means you have the right to protect yourself from those who would do you harm ...both individuals and groups of individuals (eg. armies/governments). It is no wonder that the founders, as they sought to enumerate the rights of the people, would prominently place and unambiguously state that this right "shall not be infringed" without exception.

I find that those who try to sell "gun control" and who state what isadore posted or something of the like, to do so out of ignorance, or are manipulated...or worse, do so deceitfully for their own purposes, which I might add, I consider treasonous.
Oct 18, 2015 10:26pm
I

isadore

Senior Member

7,762 posts
Oct 18, 2015 11:02 PM
Gosh a ruddies talk about unfounded bs. The Second Amendment is about an obligation, not a right. An Read article 1 section 8 of the Constitution
Congress shall have the power to provide for the calling forth the militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress rebellion and repel invasion.
To provide for the organizing, arming and disciplining the militia
Article 2 Section The President shall be the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States and of the Militia of the several states when called into actual service of the United States.
1787 Constitution preceding the Bill of Rights.
1792 Militia Act passed the same year the Bill of Rights was ratified. Defined who were obligated to be part of the milita and set regulations for them. And gave the President the power to call them out.

1794 this force was uased to suppress the Whiskey Rebellion under the leadership of President Washington.

Oct 18, 2015 11:02pm
HitsRus's avatar

HitsRus

Senior Member

9,206 posts
Oct 18, 2015 11:43 PM
Bill of Obligations?... Which is it? Ignorance, manipulation by your friends at the Kos, or are you just seditious?
Oct 18, 2015 11:43pm
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Oct 19, 2015 6:26 AM
isadore;1757772 wrote:it was not an "unalienable" right, but an obligation placed on males of a certain age who did not a religious objection to it

Ahahaha. That "obligation" was to be removed from government's reach so as not to be tampered with. It's fixed.

Jefferson understood “unalienable rights” as fixed rights given to us by our Creator rather than by government. The emphasis on our Creator is important because it shows that the rights are permanent just as the Creator is permanent.


His thought on the source of these rights was impacted by Oxford’s William Blackstone, who described “unalienable rights” as “absolute” rights–showing that they were absolute because they came from him who is absolute and that they were, are, and always will be, because the giver of those rights–Jefferson’s “Creator”–was, and is, and always be.

Moreover, because we are “endowed” with them, the rights are inseparable from us: they are part of our humanity.
In a word, the government did not give them and therefore cannot take them away, but the government still strains at ways to suppress them.
To protect fundamental, individual rights, James Madison helped include the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. The intent was to remove them from government’s reach.
Oct 19, 2015 6:26am
I

isadore

Senior Member

7,762 posts
Oct 19, 2015 8:00 AM
Con_Alma;1757804 wrote:Ahahaha. That "obligation" was to be removed from government's reach so as not to be tampered with. It's fixed.

Jefferson understood “unalienable rights” as fixed rights given to us by our Creator rather than by government. The emphasis on our Creator is important because it shows that the rights are permanent just as the Creator is permanent.


His thought on the source of these rights was impacted by Oxford’s William Blackstone, who described “unalienable rights” as “absolute” rights–showing that they were absolute because they came from him who is absolute and that they were, are, and always will be, because the giver of those rights–Jefferson’s “Creator”–was, and is, and always be.

Moreover, because we are “endowed” with them, the rights are inseparable from us: they are part of our humanity.
In a word, the government did not give them and therefore cannot take them away, but the government still strains at ways to suppress them.
To protect fundamental, individual rights, James Madison helped include the Bill of Rightsin the Constitution. The intent was to remove them from government’s reach.
Gosh a ruddies 1.What Jefferson wrote in the Declaration was not the word of God to the authors of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. They do not use the term unalienable. In fact the Rights in the Bill are alienable by a 2/3 vote of Congress and a ratification by 3/4s of the states. If they wanted to make them unalienable they could have as they did with equal representation in the Senate. Article V protects it from the amendment process.
2. The Bill of Rights was not all about individual rights. The 10th Amendment in part is about giving "reserved powers to the states. The original 1st Amendment to the Constitution that was sent out by Congress but not ratified by the states was about representation in Congress.
3. Serving in the militia was an obligation, and not one required of all people or all men. And it was regulated by laws passed by the Congress
Oct 19, 2015 8:00am
I

isadore

Senior Member

7,762 posts
Oct 19, 2015 8:02 AM
HitsRus;1757791 wrote:Bill of Obligations?... Which is it? Ignorance, manipulation by your friends at the Kos, or are you just seditious?
gosh a ruddies, normal gun nut reaction to direct quotes from the Constitution.
Oct 19, 2015 8:02am
HitsRus's avatar

HitsRus

Senior Member

9,206 posts
Oct 19, 2015 8:25 AM
isadore;1757813 wrote:gosh a ruddies, normal gun nut reaction to direct quotes from the Constitution.
Quotes you have taken out of historical context and skewed to fit your seditious narrative.
"Gun nut"... What a terrible thing to call supporters of rights and liberties ... Your true intentions are clearly showing through.
Oct 19, 2015 8:25am
I

isadore

Senior Member

7,762 posts
Oct 19, 2015 8:54 AM
HitsRus;1757818 wrote:Quotes you have taken out of historical context and skewed to fit your seditious narrative.
"Gun nut"... What a terrible thing to call supporters of rights and liberties ... Your true intentions are clearly showing through.
gosh a ruddies thanks for your selfie
Oct 19, 2015 8:54am
HitsRus's avatar

HitsRus

Senior Member

9,206 posts
Oct 19, 2015 8:54 AM
http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/2nd_Amend/rkba_docs_kw/political_philosophers.htm

Here are quotes related to the subject matter, and I would particularly pay close attention to discussion in the 16-1700's to establish a proper historical context to what the founders believed and were trying to accomplish...the founding documents are based on the philosophy of these men.

Particularly chilling:
ST. GEORGE TUCKER (Annotation to Blackstone’s “Commentaries on the Laws of England”; 1803):
“The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms, is under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.”
Oct 19, 2015 8:54am
I

isadore

Senior Member

7,762 posts
Oct 19, 2015 9:02 AM
HitsRus;1757826 wrote:http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/2nd_Amend/rkba_docs_kw/political_philosophers.htm

Here are quotes related to the subject matter, and I would particularly pay close attention to discussion in the 16-1700's to establish a proper historical context to what the founders believed and were trying to accomplish...the founding documents are based on the philosophy of these men.

Particularly chilling:
gosh a ruddies
so what, this was written long after the fact by a person who was not a participant at the Constitutional Convention or in Congress or the Legislatures that proposed and ratified the Bill of Rights.
so what to the rest.
Read what the Framers wrote in the document. There is no stated right to self defense used, it is about establishing and regulating a militia based on a fear of a standing army. Something Trenchard and a lot of the other conspiratorial types wrote about in the last 1600 and later in the 1700s
Oct 19, 2015 9:02am
HitsRus's avatar

HitsRus

Senior Member

9,206 posts
Oct 19, 2015 9:40 AM
LOL, 1803...is "LONG" after the adoption of the Bill of Rights. That's pretty weak sauce, Izzy. Moreover, it was written about England that was struggling with its King's usurpations, and had no such guarantees.
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
What part of that don't you understand? What part of that is not clealy stated.
Oct 19, 2015 9:40am
Belly35's avatar

Belly35

Elderly Intellectual

9,716 posts
Oct 19, 2015 10:31 AM
isadore;1757760 wrote:The 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Amendment does not establish an “unalienable” individual right to gun ownership. That was not its purpose. It was put in place to frugally arm a militia, so as to alleviate the need for a standing army. That “well regulated” militia was to be under the control of the Congress which had already been given the power in the Constitution to call it out, to organize it, arm and discipline it. The President had been made its commander in chief. As our nation realized it has become necessary to establish a permanent standing army the purpose of the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Amendment has disappeared. The 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Amendment like the 3[SUP]rd[/SUP] and 7[SUP]th[/SUP] are anachronisms. In the future the Heller decision will be shown to be embarrassment like Dred Scott and Plessey. Either to be changed by Amendment process or Court reversal. While the number of guns increase, the number of gun owners as a percentage of the population has taken a precipitous decrease. At some time as legally obtained guns are used in one mass killing atrocity after another we will get a reaction.
I own two homes and I just bought two more guns for a total of 5 weapons I now own.

How does that work into your graphic?
Oct 19, 2015 10:31am
fish82's avatar

fish82

Senior Member

4,111 posts
Oct 19, 2015 10:33 AM
gut;1757745 wrote:pretty good recap:
[video=youtube_share;pfmwGAd1L-o][/video]
This skit was most excellent. Larry David crushed it.
Oct 19, 2015 10:33am
I

isadore

Senior Member

7,762 posts
Oct 19, 2015 10:36 AM
Belly35;1757854 wrote:I own two homes and I just bought two more guns for a total of 5 weapons I now own.

How does that work into your graphic?
and you are part of an ever declining minority.
Oct 19, 2015 10:36am