Do you support the second amendment?

  • Thread starter Thread starter thephilosopher6
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Tells me they need a new way to enforce existing laws in the cities. I heard Mayor Guiliani had some success in NYC a few years ago… so it could be better???
 
JonNC said:
40.png
FiveLinden:
The right to bear arms derives from the constitution in the US. It is not a divine right, a natural right or a human right. It is simply a result of law.
Click to expand...
That’s not what the Supreme Court has said. It is an inherent civil and human right, not granted nor provided by government. All rights are antecedent to government, including this one.
The constitution did not create rights, it only enumerates some and protects all from government.
Click to expand...
Please quote the exact words of the Supreme Court decision where they claimed that the right to bear arms exists independently of the second amendment.
 
You all realize that you can build a gun with a piece of pipe and a metal file.

Anyone can build a gun.
 
Read the Heller decision
Code: 
c.
Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment . We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment , like the First and Fourth Amendment s, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876) , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.****The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed … .”16
Click to expand...
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

The constitution does not / cannot grant rights. Rights are antecedent to government. Government does not/ cannot grant rights, since its powers only exist at the pleasure of those who have rights; the citizens, through the states.
 
Last edited:
What the Supreme Court says is not my measure of truth or logic.
 
Last edited:
Local cottage industry:

Google YouTube Kohat:

Easy to do.

Making machine guns with hand tools for more than 50 years.

Google YouTube Kohat

Not a secret and not rocket science.

How much money do you have in your pocket?
 
Last edited:
What is the Catholic teaching on 'natural rights"?
Click to expand...
The Catholic teaching in this case is, if a group of men putting together a country from 13 colonies, makes promises to the people in order to get the country to agree to come together, that they KEEP THEIR PROMISES.
 
Last edited:
MonteRCMS said:
You all realize that you can build a gun with a piece of pipe and a metal file.

Anyone can build a gun.
Click to expand...
Well, anyone can generally do just about anything.

However, if most of the folks around here try to fashion their own firearms without some particularly specialized knowledge or training or tools, just let me know when/where you’re doing it so I can make it a point to not be there when you test it.

But verily, they teach 20 year olds to care for the nuclear reactors on our subs. You can teach most people to do just about anything. And just like that kid needs tons of training to babysit a reactor, you need adequate training to craft a safe, functioning firearm.

Any assumption otherwise is stupid-bordering-on-asinine.
 
Last edited:
FiveLinden said:
Well I don’t know, maybe people get their guns from other states and maybe, umm, drive them to California?
Click to expand...
every time you ban something the black market will bring it in from somewhere.

australia has more guns now than before its ban. the bikie gangs are smuggling them in. but you don’t hear about this because it defeats the narrative. read about the gun violence in melbourne.

look at drugs most are banned but available on most street corners everywhere.

that is the problem with bans it doesn’t stop the flow of the product.
 
petra22 said:
I’m thinking really if you want to affect the murder by hand guns… crack down in the large cities… That’s where the majority of deaths by shooting occur, right? Law enforcement needs to crack down on unlawful owners… possessors…
Click to expand...
There’s more crime in cities because there’s more everything in cities. Per capita instances will manifest more because there’s more “capitas” packed into a smaller geographic area.

You’re actually more likely to be a victim of gun crime in Kansas City than you are in Chicago, very interestingly.
 
petra22 said:
Tells me they need a new way to enforce existing laws in the cities. I heard Mayor Guiliani had some success in NYC a few years ago… so it could be better???
Click to expand...
There’s a lot of folks who think Giuliani just happened to be mayor at the right time.

As most crime is by poor youth, He had the benefit of being mayor roughly 20 years after Roe v. Wade. A lot of economists give some credence to the idea that a lot of the would-be criminals that Mayor G would have otherwise had to deal with were aborted before they could become criminals.
 
FiveLinden said:
What is the Catholic teaching on 'natural rights"?
Click to expand...
1954
Man participates in the wisdom and goodness of the Creator who gives him mastery over his acts and the ability to govern himself with a view to the true and the good. The natural law expresses the original moral sense which enables man to discern by reason the good and the evil, the truth and the lie:

The natural law is written and engraved in the soul of each and every man, because it is human reason ordaining him to do good and forbidding him to sin . . . But this command of human reason would not have the force of law if it were not the voice and interpreter of a higher reason to which our spirit and our freedom must be
Click to expand...
self defense
2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:
Click to expand...
 
JonNC said:
40.png
Vonsalza:
40.png
JonNC:
40.png
Vonsalza:
It strikes me as funny that balding, greying and pudgy middle-aged men
Click to expand...
Some more profiling here? First the poor, now this one?
Click to expand...
Hit a little close to home, apparently. 🤣
Click to expand...
It has been the consistent history of progressives to judge people by their appearance.
I’m not surprised
Click to expand...
It’s been the consistent history of people to judge by appearance. And I think we most definitely see that among many conservatives today. Oh most definitely.

-Another example of your self-fabricated boogeymen we’ve discussed before, Jon.
 
Last edited:
Vonsalza said:
40.png
JonNC:
40.png
Vonsalza:
40.png
JonNC:
40.png
Vonsalza:
It strikes me as funny that balding, greying and pudgy middle-aged men
Click to expand...
Some more profiling here? First the poor, now this one?
Click to expand...
Hit a little close to home, apparently. 🤣
Click to expand...
It has been the consistent history of progressives to judge people by their appearance.
I’m not surprised
Click to expand...
It’s been the consistent history of people to judge by appearance. And I think we most definitely see that among many conservatives today. Oh most definitely.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, but KKK, BLM, the eugenics/racist Planned Parenthood all progressive movements. But in our discussion, Von, I’m not the one who characterized people by race, gender, or economic status. I’m not the one who stated that rights ought to be restricted on these grounds.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top