Comments on: Comment of the Day: Let's Talk Second Amendment http://www.newsrealblog.com/2009/10/03/comment-of-the-day-lets-talk-second-amendment/ Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:34:39 +0000 hourly 1 By: In the know http://www.newsrealblog.com/2009/10/03/comment-of-the-day-lets-talk-second-amendment/#comment-14891 In the know Mon, 05 Oct 2009 20:55:28 +0000 http://newsrealblog.com/?p=10465#comment-14891 "real rich, right wing of our country who have never believed in democracy for the masses." Ad Hominem assumptive, logical fallacy. Who told you this lie? The TV? Wikipedia? Your Congressman? “real rich, right wing of our country who have never believed in democracy for the masses.” Ad Hominem assumptive, logical fallacy. Who told you this lie? The TV? Wikipedia? Your Congressman?

]]> By: In the know http://www.newsrealblog.com/2009/10/03/comment-of-the-day-lets-talk-second-amendment/#comment-14825 In the know Mon, 05 Oct 2009 18:58:11 +0000 http://newsrealblog.com/?p=10465#comment-14825 "...the reason that some of us are more concerned about government power than about corporate power is that Coca Cola very rarely strafes the villages of Pepsi drinkers." --- Steve Gilliard “…the reason that some of us are more concerned about government power than about corporate power is that Coca Cola very rarely strafes the villages of Pepsi drinkers.” — Steve Gilliard

]]> By: Underzog http://www.newsrealblog.com/2009/10/03/comment-of-the-day-lets-talk-second-amendment/#comment-14890 Underzog Mon, 05 Oct 2009 02:57:16 +0000 http://newsrealblog.com/?p=10465#comment-14890 I found this from the Second Amendment Foudation website: <a href="http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Bordenet1.htm" rel="nofollow">Right to posses arms</a> (near bottom excerpt from the link) "The Oregon Supreme Court defined what constitutes arms in a constitutional sense in State v. Kessler, 289 Or. 359, 614 P.2d 94, 98-99 (1980): [T]he term "arms" as used by the drafters of the constitutions probably was intended to include those weapons used by settlers for both personal and military defense. The term "arms" was not limited to firearms, but included several hand carried weapons commonly used for defense. <b>The term "arms" would not have included cannon or other heavy ordinance not kept by militiamen or private citizens. . . . [A]dvanced weapons of modem warfare have never been intended for personal possession and protection. When the constitutional drafters referred to an individual's "right to bear arms, " the arms used by the militia and for personal protection were basically the same weapons.</b> Modern weapons used exclusively by the military are not "arms" which are commonly possessed by individuals for defense, therefore, the term "arms" in the constitution does not include such weapons, If the text and purpose of the constitutional guarantee relied exclusively on the preference for a militia "for defense of the State," then the term "arms most likely would include only the modem day equivalents of the weapons used by colonial militiamen." (emphasis added) I found this from the Second Amendment Foudation website: Right to posses arms (near bottom excerpt from the link)

“The Oregon Supreme Court defined what constitutes arms in a constitutional sense in State v. Kessler, 289 Or. 359, 614 P.2d 94, 98-99 (1980):

[T]he term “arms” as used by the drafters of the constitutions probably was intended to include those weapons used by settlers for both personal and military defense. The term “arms” was not limited to firearms, but included several hand carried weapons commonly used for defense. The term “arms” would not have included cannon or other heavy ordinance not kept by militiamen or private citizens. . . . [A]dvanced weapons of modem warfare have never been intended for personal possession and protection. When the constitutional drafters referred to an individual’s “right to bear arms, ” the arms used by the militia and for personal protection were basically the same weapons. Modern weapons used exclusively by the military are not “arms” which are commonly possessed by individuals for defense, therefore, the term “arms” in the constitution does not include such weapons, If the text and purpose of the constitutional guarantee relied exclusively on the preference for a militia “for defense of the State,” then the term “arms most likely would include only the modem day equivalents of the weapons used by colonial militiamen.” (emphasis added)

]]> By: Swemson http://www.newsrealblog.com/2009/10/03/comment-of-the-day-lets-talk-second-amendment/#comment-14889 Swemson Mon, 05 Oct 2009 01:03:27 +0000 http://newsrealblog.com/?p=10465#comment-14889 WHAT ? "American society today can hardly be called moral and religious" FREEDOM OF RELIGION INCLUDES THE FREEDOM NOT TO BELIEVE IN RELIGIOUS FAIRY TALES AND OTHER OBSOLETE SUPERSTITIONS. "the millions of pre-born children who are murdered in America every day." IF YOU HEAR OF A "CHILD" BEING "MURDERED" CALL THE POLICE... WHY DON'T YOU GO ADOPT A CRACK BABY AND CARE FOR IT YOURSELF IF YOU FEEL SO STRONGLY ABOUT IT ? WHAT ?

“American society today can hardly be called moral and religious”

FREEDOM OF RELIGION INCLUDES THE FREEDOM NOT TO BELIEVE IN RELIGIOUS FAIRY TALES AND OTHER OBSOLETE SUPERSTITIONS.

“the millions of pre-born children who are murdered in America every day.”

IF YOU HEAR OF A “CHILD” BEING “MURDERED” CALL THE POLICE…

WHY DON’T YOU GO ADOPT A CRACK BABY AND CARE FOR IT YOURSELF IF YOU FEEL SO STRONGLY ABOUT IT ?

]]> By: David Swindle http://www.newsrealblog.com/2009/10/03/comment-of-the-day-lets-talk-second-amendment/#comment-14888 David Swindle Mon, 05 Oct 2009 00:11:47 +0000 http://newsrealblog.com/?p=10465#comment-14888 You didn't answer my question - "Why aren’t WMDs included in the 2nd amendment?" You're telling me what you believe and I tend to probably agree with you that WMDs shouldn't be available to the general populace. But we would need an argument explaining why they are not included in the 2nd amendment. And I fail to see how I'm making a "Roger Baldwin argument." I'm not a leftist. My point is simply this: the absolutist argument for the 2nd amendment which many gun rights advocates make is not a good argument to use. It doesn't work for the reason I've demonstrated. Within it there's no way to suddenly draw a legal line between guns and WMDs. Both constitute "arms." We need to use, better more useful arguments for defending our freedom to own guns. Further your "common sense" argument doesn't work for pretty much the reason you point out. "Common sense" is such a vague term that it means whatever people want it to mean. For the Left it's "common sense" that the government should institute single-payer health care. You didn’t answer my question – “Why aren’t WMDs included in the 2nd amendment?” You’re telling me what you believe and I tend to probably agree with you that WMDs shouldn’t be available to the general populace. But we would need an argument explaining why they are not included in the 2nd amendment.

And I fail to see how I’m making a “Roger Baldwin argument.” I’m not a leftist.

My point is simply this: the absolutist argument for the 2nd amendment which many gun rights advocates make is not a good argument to use. It doesn’t work for the reason I’ve demonstrated. Within it there’s no way to suddenly draw a legal line between guns and WMDs. Both constitute “arms.” We need to use, better more useful arguments for defending our freedom to own guns.

Further your “common sense” argument doesn’t work for pretty much the reason you point out. “Common sense” is such a vague term that it means whatever people want it to mean. For the Left it’s “common sense” that the government should institute single-payer health care.

]]> By: MaryAnn http://www.newsrealblog.com/2009/10/03/comment-of-the-day-lets-talk-second-amendment/#comment-14887 MaryAnn Mon, 05 Oct 2009 00:00:59 +0000 http://newsrealblog.com/?p=10465#comment-14887 I forgot to mention the millions of pre-born children who are murdered in America every day. That alone is reason enough to cause us to take a harder and closer look at ourselves. If we valued life the way we pretend to, these lives would be valued and protected. I forgot to mention the millions of pre-born children who are murdered in America every day. That alone is reason enough to cause us to take a harder and closer look at ourselves. If we valued life the way we pretend to, these lives would be valued and protected.

]]> By: Retired Soldier http://www.newsrealblog.com/2009/10/03/comment-of-the-day-lets-talk-second-amendment/#comment-14886 Retired Soldier Sun, 04 Oct 2009 23:40:57 +0000 http://newsrealblog.com/?p=10465#comment-14886 Mr. Swindle, WMDs I believe are in an entirely different category. I believe the ability to take hundreds of thousands of lives should remain with a government. The argument you are making is a Roger Baldwin style argument. You know of Mr. Baldwin don’t you? He founded the ACLU. One of his more famous quotes is, “I am for socialism, disarmament and ultimately, for the abolishing of the State itself. . . . I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.” The founder of the ACLU knew that language is not precise. He knew that it is impossible for someone to write something that can withstand the advancement of technology or to withstand the input of rationalizations by lawyers and jurists over a long period of time. Further, any law or constitutional amendment must be applied with common sense. This is where I believe the ACLU and the leftists have found the weakness in our Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and where they continue to attack. What your argument comes down to is; who decides what arms to keep and where does it stop? My response is, it must be decided with common sense. This begs the question: just who’s common sense makes the decision about what arms to bear? Should it be Chucky Schumer’s, Diane Feinstein’s or people even further to the left (if that is indeed possible), or would it/should it be Wayne La Pierre’s or people even further to the right? Societal mores change over time and the advancement of society. Historically, the necessities for a free existence have been forgotten by peoples over time. I hope we don’t make that mistake. Mr. Swindle,
WMDs I believe are in an entirely different category. I believe the ability to take hundreds of thousands of lives should remain with a government.

The argument you are making is a Roger Baldwin style argument. You know of Mr. Baldwin don’t you? He founded the ACLU. One of his more famous quotes is, “I am for socialism, disarmament and ultimately, for the abolishing of the State itself. . . . I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.”

The founder of the ACLU knew that language is not precise. He knew that it is impossible for someone to write something that can withstand the advancement of technology or to withstand the input of rationalizations by lawyers and jurists over a long period of time.

Further, any law or constitutional amendment must be applied with common sense. This is where I believe the ACLU and the leftists have found the weakness in our Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and where they continue to attack.

What your argument comes down to is; who decides what arms to keep and where does it stop? My response is, it must be decided with common sense. This begs the question: just who’s common sense makes the decision about what arms to bear?

Should it be Chucky Schumer’s, Diane Feinstein’s or people even further to the left (if that is indeed possible), or would it/should it be Wayne La Pierre’s or people even further to the right?

Societal mores change over time and the advancement of society. Historically, the necessities for a free existence have been forgotten by peoples over time. I hope we don’t make that mistake.

]]> By: MaryAnn http://www.newsrealblog.com/2009/10/03/comment-of-the-day-lets-talk-second-amendment/#comment-14885 MaryAnn Sun, 04 Oct 2009 23:37:00 +0000 http://newsrealblog.com/?p=10465#comment-14885 It is now 6:42pm, so I don't know how late I am in re-engaging the conversation; it is a good one, and thanks to David for starting it. One of our Foundres said that our constitution was "made for a moral and religious people." It will not work for any other. There lies the problem. At the time of Americas founding,it was recognized that man is not God;God was the source of our morals and bounty. A small but very vocal segment of America has decided that man is indeed god. Another Founder, Jefferson I believe, said that he fears for our country because God's justice can not rest forever. Indeed, it will not. Too many people invoke the name of God to support their arguments. But I ask you, is it faithfulness to God that compells a people to resign their sovereignty to the control of a distant human authority? That is exactly what America's Founders fought against, and it is exactly the purpose of America's constitution; to protect the inviolable rights of a "moral and religious people". American society today can hardly be called moral and religious.Gang members kill each other with damn near impunity, child molesters are not held accountable, it has become the epitome of cool to demand that cop killers are not held accountable for their crimes. These specific types of crimes (and their are many others)are not only crimes against specific victims, they are crimes against against our civil society. We have no one other than ourselves to blame if we don't like what's going on. I would suggest that all of us "moral and religious" people pay a hell of a lot more attention to who we vote for, and why we might be voting for them. In terms of the second amendment and whatever arms may or may not or should or should not be included- the Founders included whatever was around at the time. Buy now and buy often because this administration and congress is afraid of you; as any government should be. It is now 6:42pm, so I don’t know how late I am in re-engaging the conversation; it is a good one, and thanks to David for starting it. One of our Foundres said that our constitution was “made for a moral and religious people.” It will not work for any other. There lies the problem. At the time of Americas founding,it was recognized that man is not God;God was the source of our morals and bounty. A small but very vocal segment of America has decided that man is indeed god. Another Founder, Jefferson I believe, said that he fears for our country because God’s justice can not rest forever. Indeed, it will not. Too many people invoke the name of God to support their arguments. But I ask you, is it faithfulness to God that compells a people to resign their sovereignty to the control of a distant human authority? That is exactly what America’s Founders fought against, and it is exactly the purpose of America’s constitution; to protect the inviolable rights of a “moral and religious people”.
American society today can hardly be called moral and religious.Gang members kill each other with damn near impunity, child molesters are not held accountable, it has become the epitome of cool to demand that cop killers are not held accountable for their crimes. These specific types of crimes (and their are many others)are not only crimes against specific victims, they are crimes against against our civil society. We have no one other than ourselves to blame if we don’t like what’s going on. I would suggest that all of us “moral and religious” people pay a hell of a lot more attention to who we vote for, and why we might be voting for them. In terms of the second amendment and whatever arms may or may not or should or should not be included- the Founders included whatever was around at the time. Buy now and buy often because this administration and congress is afraid of you; as any government should be.

]]> By: Swemson http://www.newsrealblog.com/2009/10/03/comment-of-the-day-lets-talk-second-amendment/#comment-14819 Swemson Sun, 04 Oct 2009 23:30:29 +0000 http://newsrealblog.com/?p=10465#comment-14819 David... Easy pal... I don't think he was accusing YOU of employing a Saul Alinsky tactic... But he's right that twisting arguments into extreme examples, is a Saul Alinsky tactic that has been used on MANY issues, and one which I've even heard used before in 2nd Amendment debates... "If we let everyone own guns then the streets will be filled with lunatics in pick ups shooting up the neighborhood..." It's nonsense of course, but it's a standard tactic used by the left... David…

Easy pal… I don’t think he was accusing YOU of employing a Saul Alinsky tactic… But he’s right that twisting arguments into extreme examples, is a Saul Alinsky tactic that has been used on MANY issues, and one which I’ve even heard used before in 2nd Amendment debates…

“If we let everyone own guns then the streets will be filled with lunatics in pick ups shooting up the neighborhood…”

It’s nonsense of course, but it’s a standard tactic used by the left…

]]> By: Retired Soldier http://www.newsrealblog.com/2009/10/03/comment-of-the-day-lets-talk-second-amendment/#comment-14824 Retired Soldier Sun, 04 Oct 2009 22:44:48 +0000 http://newsrealblog.com/?p=10465#comment-14824 You're wrong. Modern tecnology (fluid dynamics applied to compensators/flash arrestors) has given us weapons that are tuned to the round used and able to be held in one hand, fire on full auto, and remain on target. You’re wrong.
Modern tecnology (fluid dynamics applied to compensators/flash arrestors) has given us weapons that are tuned to the round used and able to be held in one hand, fire on full auto, and remain on target.

]]> By: Judy http://www.newsrealblog.com/2009/10/03/comment-of-the-day-lets-talk-second-amendment/#comment-14823 Judy Sun, 04 Oct 2009 22:44:34 +0000 http://newsrealblog.com/?p=10465#comment-14823 Robert,would you please explain and identify who the real rich, right wing of this country is.I am curious as to how you define leftist and Republicans? What do you see as the eventual goals of the leftists vs. Republicans? How is it that the Republicans "do not believe in democracy for the masses"?Do you believe that leftists have a better agenda for the masses, and how? You have made a statement about the security of "our" country. Why and who do you believe exhibits greater concern and how? Robert,would you please explain and identify who the real rich, right wing of this country is.I am curious as to how you define leftist and Republicans? What do you see as the eventual goals of the leftists vs. Republicans? How is it that the Republicans “do not believe in democracy for the masses”?Do you believe that leftists have a better agenda for the masses, and how? You have made a statement about the security of “our” country. Why and who do you believe exhibits greater concern and how?

]]> By: David Swindle http://www.newsrealblog.com/2009/10/03/comment-of-the-day-lets-talk-second-amendment/#comment-14822 David Swindle Sun, 04 Oct 2009 22:39:22 +0000 http://newsrealblog.com/?p=10465#comment-14822 Excuse me, sir. Who do you think you are accusing of employing a Saul Alinsky tactic? Excuse me, sir. Who do you think you are accusing of employing a Saul Alinsky tactic?

]]>