Biden's ATF Says Gun Owners Have 120 Days To Comply With

[JonC]

The right of the people shall not be infringed.

That is not the reason the Ammendment gives for allowing armed citizens.

The actual reason for the Ammendment no longer exists.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying to take away our rights to have guns and defend ourselves.

I'm saying that was not the purpose of the Ammendment.

 

[Cathode]

That is not the reason the Ammendment gives for allowing armed citizens.

The actual reason for the Ammendment no longer exists.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying to take away our rights to have guns and defend ourselves.

I'm saying that was not the purpose of the Ammendment.

The reason for the 2A still exists, because the human condition hasn’t changed.

 

[JonC]

The reason for the 2A still exists, because the human condition hasn’t changed.

But the 2nd Ammendment did not exist to give Americans the ability to defend themselves against attackers, intruders, etc. The 2nd Ammendment existed to provide for the security of a free State.

 

[Cathode]

But the 2nd Ammendment did not exist to give Americans the ability to defend themselves against attackers, intruders, etc. The 2nd Ammendment existed to provide for the security of a free State.

It’s there to protect against the tyranny of the state and tyranny of criminals, it enshrines in law the right of self defence, so people can defend their freedom.
Read the Supreme Court decisions.

 

[JonC]

It’s there to protect against the tyranny of the state and tyranny of criminals, it enshrines in law the right of self defence, so people can defend their freedom.
Read the Supreme Court decisions.

This is not true.

The 2nd Ammendment was written to secure States against a Federal government. It is not to protect individual freedoms (read the history of the US).

The original intent (what I am speaking of) is not the sane as SCOTUS decisions (which can be reversed, as with Roe vs Wade).

Do you believe the forefathers intent matters?

I don't ask to be argumentative, but for clarification as there are many who believe the SCOTUS should reinterpret the US Constitution and Ammendments to suit changes that arise. You seem to be in this group. I am not.

BUT I do see some reasons for progressivism. Our nation has changed. Maybe you are right and the original intent is not relevant.

 

[Cathode]

This is not true.


The original intent (what I am speaking of) is not the sane as SCOTUS decisions (which can be reversed, as with Roe vs Wade).

Do you believe the forefathers intent matters?

I don't ask to be argumentative, but for clarification as there are many who believe the SCOTUS should reinterpret the US Constitution and Ammendments to suit changes that arise. You seem to be in this group. I am not.

BUT I do see some reasons for progressivism. Our nation has changed. Maybe you are right and the original intent is not relevant.

The Supreme Court already ruled that it’s the individual Right of each citizen.

The price of Liberty is Responsibility, and that responsibility the founders placed in the hands of the People.

The 2nd Ammendment was written to secure States against a Federal government. It is not to protect individual freedoms (read the history of the US).

If individuals can’t defend themselves the states can’t defend themselves.

A state can’t call on a disarmed populous to defend it.

 

[OnlyaSinner]

The problem is the purpose of the Ammendment.

And my opinion, reflecting the interpretation of both SCOTUS and many others well versed in law, is that "the right of the people" phrase mean that the 2A rights extend beyond merely militia. Are there other writings from the time of the BOR being enacted that would shed light on the founders' purposes for 2A?

 

[JonC]

The Supreme Court already ruled that it’s the individual Right of each citizen.

The price of Liberty is Responsibility, and that responsibility the founders placed in the hands of the People.



If individuals can’t defend themselves the states can’t defend themselves.

A state can’t call on a disarmed populous to defend it.

I know what the SCOTUS ruled.

I'm not talking about the SCOTUS (which can reverse its ruling). I'm not talking about citizens defending themselves (which has absolutely nothing to do with the 2nd Ammendment).

I am talking about the 2nd Ammendment itself and the reason it was written.

It was written to protect individual States (not individual people) by maintaining a well regulated militia (citizens obligated to protect their State).

That was its intent. Thatis what the 2nd Ammendment states to be its intent.

My question to you was whether you believe the US Constitution and its Ammendments should be viewed under its intent or reinterpreted to fit the given time.

You answered by explaining why the latter is best.

 

[JonC]

And my opinion, reflecting the interpretation of both SCOTUS and many others well versed in law, is that "the right of the people" phrase mean that the 2A rights extend beyond merely militia. Are there other writings from the time of the BOR being enacted that would shed light on the founders' purposes for 2A?

I agree that it is the right of the people.

I am talking about the purpose.

Here is the 2nd Ammendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The purpose is to maintain well regulated Militia.

The readon is it is necessary to the security of a free State.

This is accomplished by assuring that the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

 

[Cathode]

I agree that it is the right of the people.

I am talking about the purpose.

Here is the 2nd Ammendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The purpose is to maintain well regulated Militia.

The readon is it is necessary to the security of a free State.

This is accomplished by assuring that the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

The purpose is the security of a free state.

Individuals have the Right to bear arms whether they are in a militia or not.

 

[Conan]

The purpose is the security of a free state.

Individuals have the Right to bear arms whether they are in a militia or not.

True. And no matter what age or sex they are. A 68 year young person or 18 year old girl may bear arms.

 

[JonC]

The purpose is the security of a free state.

Individuals have the Right to bear arms whether they are in a militia or not.

When the Ammendment was written it was not for a standing State militia. The people in the state were able to be armed as a resource so that the State could maintain a well regulated militia for its security.

But yes, individuals have the right to have guns.

My point is the 2nd Ammendment is often misused to speak of the right of self defence.

I believe people have that right, but it is not given by the 2nd Ammendment.

 

[JonC]

True. And no matter what age or sex they are. A 68 year young person or 18 year old girl may bear arms.

They may, I agree. BUT that is not the purpose of the 2nd Ammendment (that is how the 2nd Ammendment achieves that purpose).

 

[Cathode]

When the Ammendment was written it was not for a standing State militia. The people in the state were able to be armed as a resource so that the State could maintain a well regulated militia for its security.

But yes, individuals have the right to have guns.

My point is the 2nd Ammendment is often misused to speak of the right of self defence.

I believe people have that right, but it is not given by the 2nd Ammendment.

It’s not granted by the second amendment, it’s recognised as a natural human Right, given by nature and nature’s creator.

The right of speech and the right of self defence, are natural human rights of free men.

Look at the interpretations of the founding fathers and follow their traditional intent and understanding of the Constitution.

 

[JonC]

It’s not granted by the second amendment, it’s recognised as a natural human Right, given by nature and nature’s creator.

The right of speech and the right of self defence, are natural human rights of free men.

Look at the interpretations of the founding fathers and follow their traditional intent and understanding of the Constitution.

Lol.....I can't tell if you are being serious.

No, it is granted by the 2nd Ammendment. It is the means to secure the State.

So is having the federal government divided into three branches.

But the Founding Fathers never claimed those things are God given (they established those things to protect what they believed to be God given).

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Lol.....I can't tell if you are being serious.

No, it is granted by the 2nd Ammendment. It is the means to secure the State.

So is having the federal government divided into three branches.

But the Founding Fathers never claimed those things are God given (they established those things to protect what they believed to be God given).

The Bill of Rights is not a list of rights granted by the state, but a list of rights specifically recognized by the state.

In the history of the Bill of Rights some said there was no need for such, as COTUS defined the limits of the federal government. They even feared that adding such a list could have negative effects.

Others wanted specific rights mentioned as a safeguard against the natural attempts of encroachment by federal government. The tenth amendment was added to safeguard against the feared negative effects.

Regardless of the stated reasons of the second amendment, the federal government cannot constitutionally encroach upon a citizen’s right to keep and bear arms.

 

[Cathode]

Lol.....I can't tell if you are being serious.

No, it is granted by the 2nd Ammendment. It is the means to secure the State.

So is having the federal government divided into three branches.

But the Founding Fathers never claimed those things are God given (they established those things to protect what they believed to be God given).

No, Rights aren’t granted by the state, otherwise they wouldn’t be Rights but privileges that can be revoked at whim by the state.

Prisoners and slaves have privileges, free men have Rights.

Rights preceded government, and are not decided by Government only recognised by government.

The notion of Rights stems the Judeo-christian understanding that we are all created in the image and likeness of God, therefore we have Rights, because of that dignity.

That’s why you are one nation under God, not one nation under pharaoh or any other tyrant.

The notion of Rights assumes there is higher power than just the raw power of the state.

The Constitution is a restriction of the power of Government not the People.

 

[JonC]

No, Rights aren’t granted by the state, otherwise they wouldn’t be Rights but privileges that can be revoked at whim by the state.

Prisoners and slaves have privileges, free men have Rights.

Rights preceded government, and are not decided by Government only recognised by government.

The notion of Rights stems the Judeo-christian understanding that we are all created in the image and likeness of God, therefore we have Rights, because of that dignity.

That’s why you are one nation under God, not one nation under pharaoh or any other tyrant.

The notion of Rights assumes there is higher power than just the raw power of the state.

The Constitution is a restriction of the power of Government not the People.

Technically, the 2nd Ammendment is not about rights. It is about restricting the federal government so as not to infringe on free States.

And "one nation under God" was a 1954 addition to the Pledge of Allegiance which was written in 1945 (has nothing to do with our discussion).

The notion of rights does not extend from Christianity. Christians lay aside rights for Christ.

 

[Cathode]

And "one nation under God" was a 1954 addition to the Pledge of Allegiance which was written in 1945 (has nothing to do with our discussion).

The notion of rights does not extend from Christianity. Christians lay aside rights for Christ.

I think you have failed to understand some very important fundamental principles Jon.

I know the term comes from the Pledge of Allegiance Jon. Think about the underlying principle, how deep are you willing to think it through.

Technically, the 2nd Ammendment is not about rights. It is about restricting the federal government so as not to infringe on free States.

“ The Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed “

Your view of things is maladjusted.

Supreme Court already ruled that the 2A pertains to the individual’s Right.

 

[JonC]

I think you have failed to understand some very important fundamental principles Jon.

I know the term comes from the Pledge of Allegiance Jon. Think about the underlying principle, how deep are you willing to think it through.



“ The Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed “

Your view of things is maladjusted.

Supreme Court already ruled that the 2A pertains to the individual’s Right.

I am willing to think it through, apparently more than you.

I know, for example, that the 2A pertains to the rights to individual citizens. I have stated that several times. Yet that has remained just outside your grasp.

You are missing the deeper issue here.

I am not talking about SCOTUS rulings (which can be, and have been, reversed).

I am talking about why the 2A exists.

Yes, it protects our individual right to bear arms.

Buy why? For what purpose?

To defend ourselves against an attacker? No.
To defend ourselves against the government? No.
To defend our property? No.
To defend our family? No.

Then why? For the security of a free State.


My point is men like Dr. Ben Carson are correct.
The 2nd Ammendment is misused and misunderstood by many Americans (you included).

Yes. We have the individual right to guns. And yes, that is protected by the 2A. BUT it is protected - today - on weak grounds.

The reason it is protected on weak grounds is the purpose for the 2A protecting that right is no longer relevant.

Where you seem to get off track is in the idea I am opposed to our right to bear arms. BUT it is in reality the opposite. I am saying we need better legislation to protect those rights, not relying on a reversible SCOTUS decision about an Ammendment that's cures an individual right but no loner serves its purpose.