Thread: Obama Administration's War Against The Second Amendment...Continued...

Nemo: Your right to have a gun, as all rights, exists only by law.

Yes, The Constitution.

danielpalos: The Militia of the United States may be called upon to suppress insurrections or repel invaders, with those weapons appropriate to that task.

How would that be done?

Danct: No it doesn't. The long gun restriction is a new directive by the Justice Dept. Why would the Justice Dept enact a new directive that covers something that already (according to you) exists? I asked you for the clause in the NICS that addresses multiple gun sales. You had claimed (I don't know why I have to constantly remind you of what you have already said here) that the NICS "would have prevented most of the sales that the BATFE forced gun retailers to make". Having reviewed the law, I can see no such multiple sale restriction, so please enlighten me on the clause where it can be found.

All gun sales at retailers are subject to NICS checks. There would have been many denials in F&F, had it not been for the BATFE letting those guns "walk".

You claim to be for existing gun regulations but against any new ones. Your reasoning being that new laws only affect the law-abiding (an odd observation that I have previously addressed here many times) and that new gun laws would not positively affect crime. Apparently you believe that existing gun laws are both effective and necessary, otherwise you'd be supporting something at the expense of the very parameters you claimed to hold so dear. Namely that a gun law should be shown to be both effective (against crime) and necessary. These are YOUR parameters, friend, not mine.

Do you think that gun laws should remain in effect that are NOT effective? We have already established that some gun laws are effective, but some are not.

There. You have just made my point FOR me. You're proposing to "preemptively" reject ANY new gun law regardless of what it is, what it addresses, or what the Constitutional ramifications of its enactment would be, simply out of hand. Without, by the way, even looking at its merits. An Authoritarian model if ever there was one.

I outlined four different methods (there are others) to effect the outcome of any proposed piece of legislation, BEFORE it is voted on. For you to imply that I am recommending you lay down and not use your Constitutional right of expression and redress until AFTER it becomes law is the epitome of a straw man fallacy.

Your attempt to use an appeal to fear fallacy is also shady at best. When you use the legal tools available to you as any citizen DURING the process of legislation, AND if in spite of this diligence a particular new law even manages to get through (highly unlikely) there are the courts to decide if the law is Constitutional or not. Your fears are so overblown, it's not even funny.

Would you not agree that rights retained is easier that acquriring those rights?

What an odd question. He wasn't even expressing a desire to do that.

Are you even aware that Heller guaranteed this as an individual right?

He said that Heller was the wrong way to go about that. Just wondering how he would propose it then.

You make me laugh. I am reminded of a gentleman of my acquaintance at the local tavern; who, during the course of discussing the Second Amendment, stated emphatically (pounding his fist on the bar) that he had a "God-given" right to have a gun. Prudence dictated that I not ask what portion of the scriptures he relied on for such "high" authority, for I could tell from his demeanor (he had had a good amount to drink) at the time that he would brook no argument on the subject. Needless to say, I did not put much faith in his argument. God-given rights are only good in heaven; in this world, one need have recourse to the law.

Originally Posted by Nemo

You make me laugh. I am reminded of a gentleman of my acquaintance at the local tavern; who, during the course of discussing the Second Amendment, stated emphatically (pounding his fist on the bar) that he had a "God-given" right to have a gun. Prudence dictated that I not ask what portion of the scriptures he relied on for such "high" authority, for I could tell from his demeanor (he had had a good amount to drink) at the time that he would brook no argument on the subject. Needless to say, I did not put much faith in his argument. God-given rights are only good in heaven; in this world, one need have recourse to the law.

I agree. The only God-given right, is the right to live.

Originally Posted by Nemo

You make me laugh. I am reminded of a gentleman of my acquaintance at the local tavern; who, during the course of discussing the Second Amendment, stated emphatically (pounding his fist on the bar) that he had a "God-given" right to have a gun. Prudence dictated that I not ask what portion of the scriptures he relied on for such "high" authority, for I could tell from his demeanor (he had had a good amount to drink) at the time that he would brook no argument on the subject. Needless to say, I did not put much faith in his argument. God-given rights are only good in heaven; in this world, one need have recourse to the law.

Well, let's see;

""We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.""

Now from whom does it say that certain unalienable rights are derived from??? Regardless whether you believe or not, the Declaration of Independence clearly states where the founding fathers felt those rights came from. Go debate it with them if you disagree.

Originally Posted by beenthere

Well, let's see;

""We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.""

Now from whom does it say that certain unalienable rights are derived from??? Regardless whether you believe or not, the Declaration of Independence clearly states where the founding fathers felt those rights came from. Go debate it with them if you disagree.

As I pointed out before: the Declaration of Independence was not a foundational document; rather it was the Constitution that established the framework of our government and source of our individual rights and liberty under the rule of law. Thomas Jefferson’s ideas about natural rights were not adopted by the framers of the Constitution. There are no natural rights, there are no unalienable rights, there are only legal rights. The framers of our Constitution created a nation of laws and not men. All men are not created equal, they are equal under the law; and the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are not unalienable, they are subject to law.

God and the Second Amendment:

Originally Posted by Nemo

As I pointed out before: the Declaration of Independence was not a foundational document; rather it was the Constitution that established the framework of our government and source of our individual rights and liberty under the rule of law. Thomas Jefferson’s ideas about natural rights were not adopted by the framers of the Constitution. There are no natural rights, there are no unalienable rights, there are only legal rights. The framers of our Constitution created a nation of laws and not men. All men are not created equal, they are equal under the law; and the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are not unalienable, they are subject to law.

Ayuh,.... Yer dancin' around semantics, sayin' absolutely Nothin'....

""We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.""

Originally Posted by Bondo

Ayuh,.... Yer dancin' around semantics, sayin' absolutely Nothin'....

""We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.""

Semantics? Quoting the scriptures or John Locke will not get you nowhere in court. Your right to have a gun exists by law, not some religious precept or philosophical construct of no substance or consequence. You will learn the true nature and source of your rights when you have need to enforce and protect them.