Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Second Amendment "Remedies"....

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
catnhatnh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 08:13 PM
Original message
Second Amendment "Remedies"....
Well, there's really just one, isn't there??? It involves the use of firearms to either support a federal government from an external threat, which currently does not exist, or to attempt to violently overthrow the existing, legally elected government of the United States.

There AIN'T no remedy in between. Nor any that allows you to invoke firearms as a "suggestion" that your personal politics are superior to the election results.

This MIGHT have been a valid suggestion when the Supreme Court both appointed a President and then announced that EVEN the appointment was not a legal precedent-which at very least violated the constitution the 2nd amendment was meant to support.

But as an election ploy it is disgusting, and the suggested overthrow of our elected government should be chargeable as treason, whether the person suggesting it as a "remedy" is serious or pandering. Because yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is no more destructive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
safeinOhio Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 08:22 PM
Response to Original message
1. Best quote on the subject
"In monarchy the crime of treason may admit of being pardoned or lightly punished, but the man who dares rebel against the laws of a republic ought to suffer death"
Samuel Adams
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 08:27 PM
Response to Original message
2. The 2nd protects an inalienable/unalienable right to keep and bear arms for self-defense as PA (1776
and VT (1777) said in their constitutions and only secondarily defense of state.

SCOTUS acknowledged that in DC v. Heller by saying:
QUOTE
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 Amendments, 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 . . . .
UNQUOTE
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
catnhatnh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 08:38 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Supreme Court is mistaken (surprise)
The 2nd recognizes the right only "of the people" as a whole. Individual rights such as against self-incrimination or unreasonable search specify "in their persons" meaning to each individual. Collective rights may be withheld from individuals for cause. How a "well regulated militia" is ruled to mean "every crazy not adjudicated as a felon" escapes me...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 08:43 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Where did you get that nonsense?
It's directly contrary to the writings of the framers. The second amendment has always been an individual right, a fact recognized unanimously 9-0 by the SCOTUS in Heller vs. District of Columbia.

And ALL rights may be withheld from individuals for cause. Try expressing your free speech in violation of a judge's gag order, or about classified information.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
catnhatnh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 08:54 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. The Framers as in....
The Supreme Court that decided Heller-Yep,there's a group of "founders" for you...didn't most of them "find" Bush president? Look up whether "people" and "persons" have different definitions. Do you think the actual framers were careless with language?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
baldguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 09:18 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. Gun's rights advocates are perfectly happy with the RW USSC when it confirms their mistaken beliefs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 09:44 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. Failure to acknowledge that every one of the justices
agree is simply obtuse. Are you calling Justices Stevens, Souter, Breyer, and Bader Ginsburg "RW'?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 09:37 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. So then you believe the entire Supreme Court,
all 9 justices are wrong? And you are right?

If you are saying, as I believe you are, that the 2nd Amendment is reserved for militia members only, why would the word 'people' be in there at all? Why not, 'the right of the militia to keep and bear.....'? No, if you have taken time to read the federalist papers, and for that matter both sides writings in the Heller ruling, it is as clear as it has always been that the Amendment was in fact a protection of an individual right. To see this any other way is nothing more than wishful thinking...even the vast majority right here on DU GD believe the 2nd is about individual rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beevul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 11:44 PM
Response to Reply #5
16. Do you?
Do you think the actual framers were careless with language?


We established however some, although not all its important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;

---Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. Memorial Edition 16:45, Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.

No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.

---Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.

the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.

---James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46.


"The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals.... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." \

Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."

Tench Coxe in `Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution' under the Pseudonym `A Pennsylvanian' in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1

"The great object is that every man be armed" and "everyone who is able may have a gun."

Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution.

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"

Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."

Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

-- Thomas Jefferson

Again, do you think the actual framers were careless with language?


Or were they only careful with some language? :eyes: :sarcasm:



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 08:55 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. ROFL. I quoted the law of the land and you give your opinion. Cheer up, you'll learn to live with
every citizen having the right to keep and bear arms for self defense if they choose to.

That's logical since government is not obligated to protect a citizen against criminals unless she/he is in custody.

Self-defense is a personal responsibility and handguns are the first choice of those who rely upon arms for self defense particularly those among the 970,000 full-time law enforcement employees who carry firearms.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MicaelS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 09:00 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. So you're so concerned about the availability of guns
You only want the racist, sexist, fascist, homophobic police and military to have them right? Because that is the logical conclusion of your argument.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Roscoe Filburn Donating Member (8 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 09:43 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. I'll be a pro-gun person until such a time where there's a policeman
stationed at my front door and crime ceases to exist...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
catnhatnh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 10:15 PM
Response to Original message
12. Yet whom among the 2nd amendment supporters...
will address the original post???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aikoaiko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 10:26 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Its difficult to comment, because I'm not sure what you're talking about.


Are you talking about Sharron Angle's comment?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
catnhatnh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 10:38 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. Her...
...plus other Tea Party candidates. Several have mentioned "2nd Amendment Remedies" as if there were a menu of choices. In fact it means either attacking an external threat ala "Red Dawn" or attempting to overthrow the existing government claiming oppression equal to that causing the Declaration of Independence (When in the course of human events...)

I merely want them to state which theory they are backing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-01-10 02:50 AM
Response to Reply #15
17. I'll address them. They're nutbars.
About as stupid and irrational as it gets. What of it? What do you make of any of the kooks in American politics? Does the existence of moron teabaggers invalidate the rights of the other eighty million gun owners in America? Does Code Pink throwing fake blood around hearing rooms constitute evidence that free speech is a bad thing?

They're whackjobs. Ignore them, or mock them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 10:28 PM
Response to Original message
14. If ye are talking of Sharon Angle
the last time this kind of talk was common was the 1850s
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 23rd 2014, 12:17 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC