What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?
Normally, I shy away from memes, but this one is too good to pass up for the country which likes to claim it is in some way a Christian nation, yet passes laws that make it easier for people to kill without consequences.
"You shall not murder sometimes translated as You shall not kill, KJV Thou shalt not kill (LXX οὐ φονεύσεις, translating Hebrew לֹא תִּרְצָח lo tirṣaḥ), is a moral imperative included as one of the Ten Commandments in the Torah,[1] specifically Exodus 20:13 and Deuteronomy 5:17. The imperative is against unlawful killing resulting in bloodguilt. The Hebrew Bible contains numerous prohibitions against unlawful killing, but also allows for justified killing in the context of warfare, capital punishment, and self-defense." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_shall_not_kill
As you can see, it seems commonly accepted that self-defense is acceptable, though I'm sure there are some that adhere to the commandment without any exceptions. Perhaps this is something that can be addressed through legislation in order to get some control over this "self-defense loophole"
Of course we need a judge to determine if the person exercising the self-defense loophole acted in good faith. That's why all these SYG and castle doctrine laws are a problem. They make it harder for people to be held accountable for unnecessary killings.
It makes it easier for the assailant to be held accountable on the spot when their victim has the best tools of self-defense and solid laws protecting defensive actions.
Why is it so much bigger of a deal to you if someone gets away with self-defense vs. the laws that make it easier for anyone to get away with any crime (like straight up murder)? Due process, the 4th amendment, jury trials, beyond a reasonable doubt, etc., all these things "make it easier" to get away with murder. Is that a concern to you?
Recheck your gun control playbook. You're supposed to argue that the slippery slope is a fictitious creation of the gun lobby. You're not supposed to feed the paranoid idea that accepting any infringement means any and all infringements are ok. People will just want to fight everything you do then.
Greg says a secular nation but he forgot to exclude Oklahoma. He has determined that Oklahoma has an established religion because they have the 10 Commandments posted on government property. I asked him what religion was established but he wouldn't tell me. http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/2014/01/09/unintended-consequences/
Orlin, I said that a monument to the Ten Commandments is an attempt to establish a religion and that said attempt is unconstitutional. If you can't tell which religion is being referred to, look it up.
Orlin, if you can't tell which religion or closely related gorup of religions the Ten Commandments belong to, that's simply too bad. But no, I won't shut up, no matter how much you demand it.
Greg, son of ermine, put on your big boy pants, man-up, and share your brilliance as to what religion is established by displaying the Ten Commandments. Or, do you squat when you piss?
Orlin, I've already told you that when you're impolite, you get nothing from me. Besides, what possible religion could the Ten Commandments belong to? Surely that won't tax your intellect too much.
More weaseling. I asked you politely and got a weasel response. The fact is, I called you on your imbecilic comment and you are too little of a man to fess up. Simply too gutless to give an honest answer so you slime and weasel. That is not only impolite and rude, but lacks character, too.
You are wrong. You should do YOUR homework. No surprise from a teacher who teaches the ranked worst students in the country. It's easy to see why your students are so dumb being taught by an idiot liar like you.
Our laws and our customs are based in religion. 85% of Americans believe in a God. The only thing secular about our nation, is we do not have a government approved national religion.
Our laws are not based on religion--at least on the Christian religion. In fact, since our legal system derives from English common law, it's more correct to say that if we're based on a religion, it's the Germanic heathen religions that lie at the roots of English culture.
Our laws and our customs are based in religion. 85% of Americans believe in a God. The only thing secular about our nation, is we do not have a government approved national religion. We murdered the Native Americans and stole their land. We enslaved and murdered blacks. The second amendment doesn't speak to murder because it has nothing to do with speaking to murder. Murder is not addressed at all in the Constitution. Guns and murder is how we took the country.
Anonymous, we have a nation that believes a lot of different things, some religious, some not; some involve multiple deities, not 'God'.
That is what makes us secular. We don't agree on any religious notion.
The issue of guns exists in the 2A ONLY in the context of the militia, as distinct from a standing full time professional army. It refers only to defense of the states and nation, not personal self-defense.
The only legitimate militia is the national guard; there is a clear consensus among us about those people having guns for the designated defense of us all.
Dog Gone, you're correct about religion, but the Second Amendment doesn't refer to the National Guard. That latter institution didn't exist for the first hundred or so years of our nation's history. Besides, the amendment identifies the right as belonging to the people.
And militias no longer exist, it's the national guard. Like so much of the Constitution and our early laws, they are void because those conditions, or institutions no longer exist.
I want to respond to the idea of the national guard being the modern day militia as it is mentioned in the 2nd amendment. The national guard is a government run and controlled military element. while it is "state" run it is run by the state government not by the people. The militia in terms of the 2nd amendment was the people plain and simple. the claim that rights are based on insitution existence is flawed because none of the others are based on any institution. The national guard is more akin to the army reserve and can be activated and commanded by the federal government. Additionally how does it make sense that all other rights are protected for the people but the 2nd amendment applies only in government service. To adress Lacis point of there being consensus among you, that is the operative word, among you, among those who wish to deny people the second amendment. Im sure many of you will bring up the 14th 15th amendments in regards to institutions, the problem is both of these were results of people interpreting the constitution in a self serving manner. They should have never been necessary because all men are created equal should have been adequate and self explanatory but it wasn't. much the way you are doing people interpret the constitution based on what they want, not based on what it says. Mike Z
Anonymous, you are misunderstanding what i wrote. I am well aware that they were not viewed as equal. My point is that they should have been. We run into a circumstance of people reading what they wanted into the document, much as we run into with the 2nd amendment, many advocates latch onto the militia part of it and use it to justify the infringement. Many were of the mindset that, since it doesn't say i cant that means i can and that's the wrong way to look at it. And because of that tendency the 14th and 15th had to be formalized.Some people interpret the constitution based on what they want, others take the time to see if their beliefs follow the constitution. Mike Z
MikeZ's point is clear to me. The Constitution provides specific protections for a number of rights, but control freaks and villains are always determined to violate whatever they can.
Mike Z said: "The militia in terms of the 2nd amendment was the people plain and simple." I would agree. But now that militias (plain people) are extinct in favor of government command armed forces, there is no longer a right for plain people to bare arms. We now (and since the US created a government armed force) supply our troops with firearms, so they no longer need the protection of a 2nd amend. to ensure they can buy and own arms, then fight an enemy. Why did the 2nd amend. never mention a personal right to firearms for hunting, or self defense from hostiles (Indians)? They were protecting the right of an armed force against the British, to own arms, which the British made illegal. It was against British law (that we were living under at the time) for a group opposing the crown, to be armed. The British were not concerned about individuals having guns for hunting and protection. They did take away and make illegal the possession of firearms by those known to be members of the militia against the crown. Washington had no money for arms, and all those who came to fight brought their own guns with them. Thus an individual had a right as long as he was going to join the militia and fight the British. That's why the militia clause is first, and there is no mention of a right for those just killing for food, or protection from domestic hostiles (Indians).
MikeB, I believe all men are created equal, all have the rights spelled out in the constitution. is that clear enough? Again i make the point that people will push the boundaries as far as they can in order to push their own bias. Now to address anonymous, The 2nd amendment is for the people clearly written. There was a standing army, though small and the citizen militia. The citizen militia was not controlled or commanded by the government. It was the people. All of the other rights are expressly against an overly aggressive and powerful government, so again i ask how does it make any sense that the right to the very tools that protect life liberty and the pursuit of happiness only apply to service with in the name of the government. How does it make sense that they would include an amendment that provided rights to protect against subjugation to one government but not another? Not to mention the origins of gun control but that's a whole different story. MikeZ
The standing army at the time, as you call it, was only militia. It was commanded by George Washington and Washington was not taking orders from the Continental Congress, and he got little, if any financial help from the Continental Congress. Using the English rules of phrasing, clauses, commas, and sentence structure, why do you only cite the individual clause and not mention the militia clause? The first clause describes the need for the second clause. The mention of individual right comes after the defining clause of forming a militia.
The only one being called a liar, is you. Rightfully so since you have been proven to be a liar over and over and over again. liar fits you perfectly, no reason to use another word.
1. I reject your characterization of them as "dime-gods."
2. As I've told you many times before, the militia was seen as the reason that the right had to be enumerated. They had seen the British government infringe on that particular right, and they saw two things--a militia system and an individual right--as needing protection. But the right itself was always seen as an individual one--until a collectivist interpretation gets invented later in an attempt to increase government power.
Of course it does. But do you notice how the amendment doesn't require militia membership? Do you notice how it identifies the right as belonging to the people?
No I don't notice that at all. In fact it explains that a militia is the reason for the right. Is twisting words the only way you can make a false point.
There is no right to own guns. Your side has bastardized the meaning of the 2A. It is absolutely meaningless in the 21st century United States.
That doesn't mean the complete citizen disarmament must follow. Not at all. It only means you cannot fall back on the fake reading of the 2A to justify gun ownership. If this were straightened out, passing and enforcing proper gun control laws would be possible.
Mikeb, you have just stated the reason that we can never trust you. "There is no right to own guns." As long as your side believes that, we can make no deals, no compromises, no giving of ground. Because if you don't believe that gun ownership is a basic right, there's nothing to stop you trying for an outright ban someday.
Greg, you're right. There's nothing to stop anyone from trying to outright ban guns. But why would we? There are about 30 million gun owners who are totally responsible and who in fact make the world a safer place. They don't leave their guns out for the thieves. They don't drop their guns and have negligent discharges. They would never sell or give a gun to someone without doing a background check first. Speaking for myself, I wouldn't want to disarm people like that. You, on the other hand should be disarmed in all probability. You and people like you just can't abide rules and regulations - like the adolescent-minded boys you are.
Mikeb, read anti-gun commentary. I see demands for total disarmament all over the place. Politicians like to get elected, so they're hesitant to admit their goals, but every once in a while, they come out with what they really want.
But why would you expect us to trust you and your side when you come out with snide comments like this? You admit that you want to disarm me. Do you expect that I'll help you in that endeavor? Please, push a national campaign calling half of all gun owners "adolescent-minded boys." You'll lose the support of gun owners and of people who care about good writing, and we'll have supermajorities of gun-rights supporters in both houses of Congress.
Being a criminal lying coward, there is no reason to expect your help in ending useless gun deaths. You root for gun deaths, you base your ideology on how there are so few gun deaths (33,000) .
"You shall not murder sometimes translated as You shall not kill, KJV Thou shalt not kill (LXX οὐ φονεύσεις, translating Hebrew לֹא תִּרְצָח lo tirṣaḥ), is a moral imperative included as one of the Ten Commandments in the Torah,[1] specifically Exodus 20:13 and Deuteronomy 5:17.
ReplyDeleteThe imperative is against unlawful killing resulting in bloodguilt. The Hebrew Bible contains numerous prohibitions against unlawful killing, but also allows for justified killing in the context of warfare, capital punishment, and self-defense."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_shall_not_kill
As you can see, it seems commonly accepted that self-defense is acceptable, though I'm sure there are some that adhere to the commandment without any exceptions. Perhaps this is something that can be addressed through legislation in order to get some control over this "self-defense loophole"
Of course we need a judge to determine if the person exercising the self-defense loophole acted in good faith. That's why all these SYG and castle doctrine laws are a problem. They make it harder for people to be held accountable for unnecessary killings.
DeleteBut Mikeb, you label a lot of things as unnecessary that many people find justified.
DeleteIt makes it easier for the assailant to be held accountable on the spot when their victim has the best tools of self-defense and solid laws protecting defensive actions.
DeleteWhy is it so much bigger of a deal to you if someone gets away with self-defense vs. the laws that make it easier for anyone to get away with any crime (like straight up murder)? Due process, the 4th amendment, jury trials, beyond a reasonable doubt, etc., all these things "make it easier" to get away with murder. Is that a concern to you?
"The best tools of self-defense" are what exactly? Haven't you already relinquished them? Haven't you already accepted a number of infringements?
DeleteRecheck your gun control playbook. You're supposed to argue that the slippery slope is a fictitious creation of the gun lobby. You're not supposed to feed the paranoid idea that accepting any infringement means any and all infringements are ok. People will just want to fight everything you do then.
DeleteSo, you agree then that you do not have "the best tools for self defense."
Delete1. America is a secular nation.
ReplyDelete2. The text actually says, You shall not murder.
3. The Second Amendment doesn't permit murder.
Greg says a secular nation but he forgot to exclude Oklahoma. He has determined that Oklahoma has an established religion because they have the 10 Commandments posted on government property.
DeleteI asked him what religion was established but he wouldn't tell me.
http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/2014/01/09/unintended-consequences/
orlin sellers
Orlin, I said that a monument to the Ten Commandments is an attempt to establish a religion and that said attempt is unconstitutional. If you can't tell which religion is being referred to, look it up.
DeleteThat is exactly correct, YOU SAID it was an attempt to establish A RELIGION. Now, YOU TELL ME what religion, otherwise STFU.
Deleteorlin sellers
Orlin, if you can't tell which religion or closely related gorup of religions the Ten Commandments belong to, that's simply too bad. But no, I won't shut up, no matter how much you demand it.
DeleteGreg, son of ermine, put on your big boy pants, man-up, and share your brilliance as to what religion is established by displaying the Ten Commandments. Or, do you squat when you piss?
Deleteorlin sellers
Orlin, I've already told you that when you're impolite, you get nothing from me. Besides, what possible religion could the Ten Commandments belong to? Surely that won't tax your intellect too much.
DeleteMore weaseling. I asked you politely and got a weasel response. The fact is, I called you on your imbecilic comment and you are too little of a man to fess up. Simply too gutless to give an honest answer so you slime and weasel. That is not only impolite and rude, but lacks character, too.
Deleteorlin sellers
Many different religions accept and form their beliefs around the Ten Commandments.
DeleteAnonymous, what are you talking about? There are only two religions that include the Ten Commandments.
DeleteWhich two are those?
DeleteLook it up. I'm not doing your basic homework for you.
DeleteYou are wrong. You should do YOUR homework. No surprise from a teacher who teaches the ranked worst students in the country. It's easy to see why your students are so dumb being taught by an idiot liar like you.
DeleteOur laws and our customs are based in religion.
ReplyDelete85% of Americans believe in a God.
The only thing secular about our nation, is we do not have a government approved national religion.
Our laws are not based on religion--at least on the Christian religion. In fact, since our legal system derives from English common law, it's more correct to say that if we're based on a religion, it's the Germanic heathen religions that lie at the roots of English culture.
DeleteI agree. As I said our laws are based on religion. I did not say christian.
DeleteOur laws and our customs are based in religion.
ReplyDelete85% of Americans believe in a God.
The only thing secular about our nation, is we do not have a government approved national religion.
We murdered the Native Americans and stole their land.
We enslaved and murdered blacks.
The second amendment doesn't speak to murder because it has nothing to do with speaking to murder. Murder is not addressed at all in the Constitution.
Guns and murder is how we took the country.
Anonymous, we have a nation that believes a lot of different things, some religious, some not; some involve multiple deities, not 'God'.
ReplyDeleteThat is what makes us secular. We don't agree on any religious notion.
The issue of guns exists in the 2A ONLY in the context of the militia, as distinct from a standing full time professional army. It refers only to defense of the states and nation, not personal self-defense.
The only legitimate militia is the national guard; there is a clear consensus among us about those people having guns for the designated defense of us all.
The rest is an overreach.
"a God"
DeleteTake your pick of Gods.
If we were truly a secular nation that would be reflected in our customs, laws and behavior, it is not.
Dog Gone, you're correct about religion, but the Second Amendment doesn't refer to the National Guard. That latter institution didn't exist for the first hundred or so years of our nation's history. Besides, the amendment identifies the right as belonging to the people.
DeleteAnd militias no longer exist, it's the national guard. Like so much of the Constitution and our early laws, they are void because those conditions, or institutions no longer exist.
DeleteAnonymous has it right.
DeleteI want to respond to the idea of the national guard being the modern day militia as it is mentioned in the 2nd amendment. The national guard is a government run and controlled military element. while it is "state" run it is run by the state government not by the people. The militia in terms of the 2nd amendment was the people plain and simple. the claim that rights are based on insitution existence is flawed because none of the others are based on any institution. The national guard is more akin to the army reserve and can be activated and commanded by the federal government. Additionally how does it make sense that all other rights are protected for the people but the 2nd amendment applies only in government service. To adress Lacis point of there being consensus among you, that is the operative word, among you, among those who wish to deny people the second amendment. Im sure many of you will bring up the 14th 15th amendments in regards to institutions, the problem is both of these were results of people interpreting the constitution in a self serving manner. They should have never been necessary because all men are created equal should have been adequate and self explanatory but it wasn't. much the way you are doing people interpret the constitution based on what they want, not based on what it says.
DeleteMike Z
"They should have never been necessary because all men are created equal should have been adequate and self explanatory"
DeleteYou really want to stand on the idea that in 1789 all men were equal, not to mention women?
Anonymous, you are misunderstanding what i wrote. I am well aware that they were not viewed as equal. My point is that they should have been. We run into a circumstance of people reading what they wanted into the document, much as we run into with the 2nd amendment, many advocates latch onto the militia part of it and use it to justify the infringement. Many were of the mindset that, since it doesn't say i cant that means i can and that's the wrong way to look at it. And because of that tendency the 14th and 15th had to be formalized.Some people interpret the constitution based on what they want, others take the time to see if their beliefs follow the constitution.
DeleteMike Z
MikeZ, what is it that you believe. You lost me in those two comments.
DeleteMikeZ's point is clear to me. The Constitution provides specific protections for a number of rights, but control freaks and villains are always determined to violate whatever they can.
DeleteMike Z said:
Delete"The militia in terms of the 2nd amendment was the people plain and simple."
I would agree. But now that militias (plain people) are extinct in favor of government command armed forces, there is no longer a right for plain people to bare arms.
We now (and since the US created a government armed force) supply our troops with firearms, so they no longer need the protection of a 2nd amend. to ensure they can buy and own arms, then fight an enemy.
Why did the 2nd amend. never mention a personal right to firearms for hunting, or self defense from hostiles (Indians)?
They were protecting the right of an armed force against the British, to own arms, which the British made illegal. It was against British law (that we were living under at the time) for a group opposing the crown, to be armed. The British were not concerned about individuals having guns for hunting and protection. They did take away and make illegal the possession of firearms by those known to be members of the militia against the crown.
Washington had no money for arms, and all those who came to fight brought their own guns with them. Thus an individual had a right as long as he was going to join the militia and fight the British. That's why the militia clause is first, and there is no mention of a right for those just killing for food, or protection from domestic hostiles (Indians).
MikeB, I believe all men are created equal, all have the rights spelled out in the constitution. is that clear enough? Again i make the point that people will push the boundaries as far as they can in order to push their own bias. Now to address anonymous, The 2nd amendment is for the people clearly written. There was a standing army, though small and the citizen militia. The citizen militia was not controlled or commanded by the government. It was the people. All of the other rights are expressly against an overly aggressive and powerful government, so again i ask how does it make any sense that the right to the very tools that protect life liberty and the pursuit of happiness only apply to service with in the name of the government. How does it make sense that they would include an amendment that provided rights to protect against subjugation to one government but not another? Not to mention the origins of gun control but that's a whole different story.
DeleteMikeZ
The standing army at the time, as you call it, was only militia. It was commanded by George Washington and Washington was not taking orders from the Continental Congress, and he got little, if any financial help from the Continental Congress.
DeleteUsing the English rules of phrasing, clauses, commas, and sentence structure, why do you only cite the individual clause and not mention the militia clause? The first clause describes the need for the second clause. The mention of individual right comes after the defining clause of forming a militia.
The militia clause explains why a pre-existing right needs the protection of a Constitutional amendment.
Delete??????
DeleteA right pre-existing the Constitution?
Yes, Anonymous. The Constitution does not create rights. It protects rights that exist prior to it.
DeleteProve you have a right to a gun without a 2nd amendment?
DeleteI wrote an article on the subject of the origin of our rights. Go here:
Deletehttp://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/
Already have your lying opinion on the origin of our rights.
DeleteWhat other rights do you believe you have, that are not in the Constitution?
Are you calling John Locke a liar? How about many other philosophers who argue that our rights come from our having been born?
DeleteYou should buy yourself a dictionary and learn some new words. Lie is not the only word in our language.
The only one being called a liar, is you. Rightfully so since you have been proven to be a liar over and over and over again. liar fits you perfectly, no reason to use another word.
DeleteAnonymous, the militia isn't necessary for the right. The people possess the right to keep and bear arms, independent of militia service.
ReplyDeleteGreg, then why did the dime-gods you admire so much put the first four words in the damn amendement if "the militia isn't necessary for the right."
Delete1. I reject your characterization of them as "dime-gods."
Delete2. As I've told you many times before, the militia was seen as the reason that the right had to be enumerated. They had seen the British government infringe on that particular right, and they saw two things--a militia system and an individual right--as needing protection. But the right itself was always seen as an individual one--until a collectivist interpretation gets invented later in an attempt to increase government power.
What you say (without proof) is just more bullshit from the site lying coward.
DeleteThat's not what the amendment says.
DeleteIt starts:
A well regulated militia.............
Of course it does. But do you notice how the amendment doesn't require militia membership? Do you notice how it identifies the right as belonging to the people?
DeleteNo I don't notice that at all.
DeleteIn fact it explains that a militia is the reason for the right.
Is twisting words the only way you can make a false point.
No, the reason for the the right is "the security of a free state". Do we not have that need anymore?
DeleteThere is no right to own guns. Your side has bastardized the meaning of the 2A. It is absolutely meaningless in the 21st century United States.
DeleteThat doesn't mean the complete citizen disarmament must follow. Not at all. It only means you cannot fall back on the fake reading of the 2A to justify gun ownership. If this were straightened out, passing and enforcing proper gun control laws would be possible.
Mikeb, you have just stated the reason that we can never trust you. "There is no right to own guns." As long as your side believes that, we can make no deals, no compromises, no giving of ground. Because if you don't believe that gun ownership is a basic right, there's nothing to stop you trying for an outright ban someday.
DeleteThat's why we have a national guard, to ensure a free state.
DeleteGreg, you're right. There's nothing to stop anyone from trying to outright ban guns. But why would we? There are about 30 million gun owners who are totally responsible and who in fact make the world a safer place. They don't leave their guns out for the thieves. They don't drop their guns and have negligent discharges. They would never sell or give a gun to someone without doing a background check first. Speaking for myself, I wouldn't want to disarm people like that. You, on the other hand should be disarmed in all probability. You and people like you just can't abide rules and regulations - like the adolescent-minded boys you are.
DeleteMikeb, read anti-gun commentary. I see demands for total disarmament all over the place. Politicians like to get elected, so they're hesitant to admit their goals, but every once in a while, they come out with what they really want.
DeleteBut why would you expect us to trust you and your side when you come out with snide comments like this? You admit that you want to disarm me. Do you expect that I'll help you in that endeavor? Please, push a national campaign calling half of all gun owners "adolescent-minded boys." You'll lose the support of gun owners and of people who care about good writing, and we'll have supermajorities of gun-rights supporters in both houses of Congress.
Being a criminal lying coward, there is no reason to expect your help in ending useless gun deaths. You root for gun deaths, you base your ideology on how there are so few gun deaths (33,000) .
Delete