• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

What Does the Second Amendment Really Say?

Here is What I Think:

  • The Second Amendment Does Not Guarantee Private Gun Ownership.

    Votes: 39 38.2%

  • The Second Amendment Does Guarantee Private Gun Ownership.

    Votes: 63 61.8%
  • Total voters
    102
DavidJames said:
So what you're saying is a human right is determined by voting? A "fundamental human right" can swing on a single vote.

Edit - so we can put this gun thing up for a vote, it was your idea, after all.
Click to expand...
It's already up for a vote at any time, as is every other right protected by the Constitution.

Of course, the amendment process has never before been used to take away a right. People like having rights.
 
WildCat said:
Of course, the amendment process has never before been used to take away a right. People like having rights.
Click to expand...

Eh? So the 18th never happened? 46 states ratified it, you know, so apparently some people didn't want the right to drink.
 
GlennB said:
Born with rights presumed to exist by some people's interpretation of what The FSM intended for humankind's condition?

Oh dear. I think we should move this to Religion.
Click to expand...
It has nothing to do with religion or gods. It has to do with rights all human beings are born with. To take away any of those rights requires a high hurdle to be cleared, and in fact it has never been cleared in over 200 years our Constitution has existed. Rights have been added, but none have been taken away.
 
DavidJames said:
So what you're saying is a human right is determined by voting?
Click to expand...
Gotta love that Rule of So!

No, I'm saying that whether a given society or community chooses to recognize a human right may be determined by voting, among other means.*

A "fundamental human right" can swing on a single vote.
Click to expand...
In some cases, yes. I admit, this solution leaves a lot to be desired, but all the other solutions societies have tried seem to be even worse, overall.**

Edit - so we can put this gun thing up for a vote, it was your idea, after all.
Click to expand...
Certainly! The society I'm a member of already recognizes the right in question, so I'm happy with the status quo. If you want to change it, my society will apply this voting process to decide whether it continues to recognize the right to bear arms. Feel free to get that started whenever you like. I'll see you at the polls!***














*Rights themselves, of course, are determined by what truths a given individual holds to be self-evident. Since these are going to vary from individual to individual, a means of building consensus becomes necessary, for societies to agree on what rights to recognize, and how to enforce them.

**Actually, Good Czar is a better solution than voting, but is usually too unreliable to be worth the trouble.

***Our voting-based consensus system is actually a lot more complicated than that. For a more complete idea of how your vote can be used to influence our society's acceptance of the right to bear arms, start here.
 
elbe said:
So rights are only rights if they are enumerated. I did not realize that. I can see how "unalienable" they are then.
Click to expand...
Rights protected by the Constitution are core human rights. Everything else is privilege.

And the word you're looking for is "inalienable".
 
WildCat said:
What's special is we don't look at rights as granted to us by our government, government can only take rights away.
Click to expand...

Government doesn't grant rights, only infringes on them, but the only rights we have are those explicitly enumerated? There appears to be a fault in your logic, could you please clarify?
 
Gawdzilla said:
What good are handguns in this "militia" thing?
Click to expand...

To shoot things, threaten to shoot things, and back up when the other things that shoot things stop shooting things.

Gawdzilla said:
Prediction. The ammosexuals will cheer, and then lose, at which time they will stop the cheers and go back to business as usual, that being whinging.
Click to expand...

What other rights aren't the right rights, because they can be voted on? That would be all of them in the Bill of Rights, as an Amendment could undo any of them.

And no, put up for a popular the proper vote the 2nd Amendment wouldn't be repealed, at least not today. Nor tomorrow.

The name calling is a winning tactic by the way.
 
Last edited:
elbe said:
Government doesn't grant rights, only infringes on them, but the only rights we have are those explicitly enumerated? There appears to be a fault in your logic, could you please clarify?
Click to expand...

It doesn't actually matter. I explained why earlier, as did the prestige. This line of argument might interest some, but simply trying to check Wild Cat in some seeming contradiction is a 'points scoring' exercise and tells us nothing new on the topic.

If it mattered, it would do the same (invalidate, support, whatever) to all the rights in the Bill of Rights. Think that through and decide if it's a good idea or not.
 
Gawdzilla said:
What good are handguns in this "militia" thing?
Click to expand...

Military personnel use handguns for a number of different situations and functions, such as close combat, personal and executive protection, policing and guard duties, courier, anti-hijacking, back-up to the primary weapon and crew survival.

While in the service I was qualified on the service rifle, shotgun, submachine-gun, handgun and non-lethal devices. Of those, I carried the revolver or pistol at least twenty times as much as the rifle. The shotgun only twice, non-lethal once (on a prisoner escort) and never the MP-5.

For many specialists, such as vehicle and equipment operators, the pistol is the weapon of choice.
 
Suppose that regardless of your opinion of the first clause, the condition was met so that the second clause was in effect (either you think its irrelevant, or we had a need for a militia)

What counts as an infringement? Can we own M4? M240?
 
SezMe said:
theprestige, could you reply to Gawdzilla's question in some way other then posting another question?
Click to expand...

My interpretation of the amendment leads me to conclude that all questions relating to the militia clause are irrelevant. Attempting to justify the right to bear arms in terms of the militia clause is a waste of time. By focusing on the militia clause, Gawdzilla distracts from the real issue. I say as much in post #83. That said, there are legitimate uses for handguns in combat and security, which I would be happy to discuss in another thread, and which other members have elucidated here. However, as I don't see the point in such digressions, I'd rather not dwell on them in this thread. Instead, I prefer to redirect the conversation towards that part of the amendment which I think is most germane to the topic of this thread. You may disagree with my position, but I hope that now you at least understand why I answered Gawdzilla's inane question with a pertinent question of my own.
 
Last edited:
WildCat said:
It has nothing to do with religion or gods. It has to do with rights all human beings are born with.
Click to expand...

And who enumerated these rights? The authors of the Constitution.

Why is it that some countries have no equivalent of the 2A? Did the authors of their constitutions carelessly overlook the right to bear arms when they were considering the list of natural rights?

'Rights' are a human construct, not an absolute, and the 2A is a reflection of the era in which it was written, hence the militia business. If not, why doesn't it just say "The right to bear arms shall not be infringed"?
 
How are humans born with rights to begin with? If we don't have the right to pour any liquid we can obtain down our food-holes, how can we claim any other rights?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom