When political rhetoric become dangerous (Ricin laced letters)

[colourwheel]

 

 

 

Well for starters Gun control Legislation and the 2nd amendment are two seperate things. :rolleyes: you can have gun control laws made that will not even effect the right to bare arms.

 

Absurd!?! :teehee:

 

Did I ever say new legislation won't effect existing constitutional rights? no! :rolleyes:

 

Yes, you did. Seriously, its right there. I quoted it again to save you the trouble of scrolling back. You say that it will "not even affect" that existing constitutional right.

 

Now you are just totally taking my words out of context... i said "you can have gun control laws made that will not even effect the right to bare arms."

 

Why is it so hard for you to understand new gun control legislation is possible without touching "the right to bare arms"?

 

Say a new law is made banning a new gun that was introduced into the fire arms family because it's destructive power would level a town. Does that still mean you don't have the right to bare arms anymore? Did this new gun control legislation change the 2nd amendment or take away any existing rights?

 

 

There is no mention of overthrowing tyrannical government in the amendment. The purpose of the amendment is to allow the citizens to protect themselves from anything: government intrusion, criminals, foreign invaders, wild animals, aliens, whatever.

 

There is no mention of government intrusion, criminals, foreign invaders, wild animals, aliens, or whatever in the amendment either. I was simply stating why it was written for in the 1st place. :rolleyes:

 

 

More importantly, my point was correct in that you are mistaken about the nature of the bill of rights. It does not grant rights to people. It protects the people from infringement upon their rights. It does not say that you have rights because the government gave them to you. Rather, it says that the government shall lack the power to infringe upon your rights. Governments do not give people rights. Governments take rights away. You are looking at it backwards.

 

The Bill of Rights is the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. They contain a list of individual "rights" and "liberties", like freedom of speech, religion, and the press. They are "rights" that all citizens have and they cannot be taken away by the government. The Bill of Rights limits the powers of government. It protects two kinds of rights: rights of the individual, like freedom of speech, and rights of persons accused of crimes, like the right to trial by jury....

 

I am not looking backwards I am looking more forward than you know... :teehee:

 

 

 

But, for the sake of argument, let us pretend that you are correct and that is the intent of the law. Wouldn't that require that the citizens are able to obtain weapons that are on par with those that the military uses? In other words, if the purpose of the amendment is to protect the citizens from the government, and the government has automatic rifles, wouldn't a law prohibiting the possession of automatic rifles be in violation of the spirit, if not the wording, of the law?

 

Ok lets play pretend... :thumbsup:

Remember... The government also has nuclear arms and drones, who cares about automatic rifles... :P

 

Since we are pretending now...

 

I am a tyrannical government... and you are the nations rebelion....

 

.... you start shooting your automatic rifles at me.... I take 1% damage!

 

.... I fire one nuclear missile at you.... you take 95% damage and loose a turn....

 

.... I use drones to get rid of what is left of the rebelion.... you take 5% damage and die!

 

Rebelion crushed!!!! I WIN!!!! ;D Yay me! :dance:

Edited June 7, 2013 by colourwheel

[saadus]

 

 

 

But, for the sake of argument, let us pretend that you are correct and that is the intent of the law. Wouldn't that require that the citizens are able to obtain weapons that are on par with those that the military uses? In other words, if the purpose of the amendment is to protect the citizens from the government, and the government has automatic rifles, wouldn't a law prohibiting the possession of automatic rifles be in violation of the spirit, if not the wording, of the law?

 

Ok lets play pretend... :thumbsup:

 

Remember... The government also has nuclear arms and drones, who cares about automatic rifles... :P

 

Since we are pretending now...

 

I am a tyrannical government... and you are the nations rebelion....

 

.... you start shooting your automatic rifles at me.... I take 1% damage!

 

.... I fire one nuclear missile at you.... you take 95% damage and loose a turn....

 

.... I use drones to get rid of what is left of the rebelion.... you take 5% damage and die!

 

Rebelion crushed!!!! I WIN!!!! ;D Yay me! :dance:

 

Yeah, and let's kill all our citizens at once! Since, you know we don't need them to do most if not all the work required to run a proper country. =D While we are at it, let's destroy the landscape with nukes! Even better =D

 

/sarcasm

 

A government that kills its own citizens is a government doomed to fall. This scenario is both pointless and ridiculous. The Right to Bare Arms was to protect the American people from any possible threat instead of relying just on the government. Now, let us kindly get back to the other points of the debate.

[colourwheel]

 

 

 

 

But, for the sake of argument, let us pretend that you are correct and that is the intent of the law. Wouldn't that require that the citizens are able to obtain weapons that are on par with those that the military uses? In other words, if the purpose of the amendment is to protect the citizens from the government, and the government has automatic rifles, wouldn't a law prohibiting the possession of automatic rifles be in violation of the spirit, if not the wording, of the law?

 

Ok lets play pretend... :thumbsup:

 

Remember... The government also has nuclear arms and drones, who cares about automatic rifles... :P

 

Since we are pretending now...

 

I am a tyrannical government... and you are the nations rebelion....

 

.... you start shooting your automatic rifles at me.... I take 1% damage!

 

.... I fire one nuclear missile at you.... you take 95% damage and loose a turn....

 

.... I use drones to get rid of what is left of the rebelion.... you take 5% damage and die!

 

Rebelion crushed!!!! I WIN!!!! ;D Yay me! :dance:

 

Yeah, and let's kill all our citizens at once! Since, you know we don't need them to do most if not all the work required to run a proper country. =D While we are at it, let's destroy the landscape with nukes! Even better =D

 

/sarcasm

 

A government that kills its own citizens is a government doomed to fall. This scenario is both pointless and ridiculous. The Right to Bare Arms was to protect the American people from any possible threat instead of relying just on the government.

 

But you see my point? No matter how well armed the people are, in our country, every citizen could have an arsenal of fire arms and the government would have everything else.... Even drones alone could crush a rebelion in a matter of weeks! Sadly fire arms in this day and age is unrealistic to fight off a tyrannical government in this country...

Edited June 7, 2013 by colourwheel

[TRoaches]

There is no mention of government intrusion, criminals, foreign invaders, wild animals, aliens, or whatever in the amendment either. I was simply stating why it was written for in the 1st place. :rolleyes:

There is no mention of any specific threat. It simply says that the right to bear arms is intended to keep the nation secure. You are incorrectly stating why it was written by narrowing the scope of intent to protection against the government. It is about protection from any possible threat. Switzerland managed to avoid invasion through two world wars, and it was not because the larger, more powerful militaries were afraid of the Swiss military. It was, in large part, because their entire population is known to be armed. When Katrina happened there was near anarchy in the streets, and people who were armed stood a better chance of defending themselves against opportunistic criminals. When the confiscations happened it was done according to the gun ownership registries, meaning that the lawfully owned guns were confiscated while the illegal guns stayed in the street. This made everyone LESS secure.

 

If anything the constitution is intended to eliminate the need for armed rebellion by allowing us to remove any official at any time through civil methods.

 

Your rebellion/nuclear/drone scenario only serves to illustrate why the 2nd amendment is not about fighting against the government. The constitution does not recognize a right to bear arms against governmental authorities. It provides civil methods to remove those in power, and limits the power that any individual or group can hold and abuse, thus negating the need for rebellion. It is intended to avoid future revolutions, not encourage or enable them.

[colourwheel]

 

You are incorrectly stating why it was written by narrowing the scope of intent to protection against the government.

 

Ok then let me try to correct myself since I am always so incorrectly stating everything.... :rolleyes:

 

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.

 

The right to bear arms predates the Bill of Rights; the Second Amendment was based partially on the right to bear arms in English common-law, and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689.

 

There was an ongoing debate in the 1780s about "the people" fighting governmental tyranny (as described by Anti-Federalists); or the risk of mob rule of "the people" (as described by the Federalists) related to the ongoing revolution in France. A widespread fear, during the debates on ratifying the Constitution, was the possibility of a military takeover of the states by the federal government, which could happen if the Congress passed laws prohibiting states from arming citizens, or prohibiting citizens from arming themselves.Though it has been argued that the states lost the power to arm their citizens when the power to arm the militia was transferred from the states to the federal government by Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution, the individual right to arm was retained and strengthened by the Militia Acts of 1792 and the similar act of 1795.

 

In United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875), the Supreme Court ruled that "the right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government."

 

In United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the amendment "protects arms that had a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia". This ruling has been widely described as ambiguous, and ignited a debate on whether the amendment protected an individual right, or a collective militia right.

 

In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment "codified a pre-existing right" and that it "protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home" but also stated that "the right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose". They also clarified that many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court are consistent with the Second Amendment.

 

In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.

Edited June 7, 2013 by colourwheel

[TRoaches]

You copy-pasted every word of that from the wikipedia article on the second amendment.

 

Now you should do the same for the article on the first amendment, and try to fit your theory that LaPierre should be imprisoned for his political expression in with what it says about the protection of freedom of expression, particularly with regards to criticism of political leaders and policy.

[colourwheel]

 

You copy-pasted every word of that from the wikipedia article on the second amendment.

 

Now you should do the same for the article on the first amendment, and try to fit your theory that LaPierre should be imprisoned for his political expression in with what it says about the protection of freedom of expression, particularly with regards to criticism of political leaders and policy.

 

Well notice, since I copy and pasted wikipedia article you don't seem to be trying to correct me about the original reason why 2nd amendment was put into the constitution or keep telling me I am incorrect... ;D

 

Also....

 

You seem to have a tendency of ignoring a lot of my questions when I have been more than generous in giving in my explanations to your questions.

Maybe you should re-read the entire thread and find where I asked you this specific question...

 

 

At what point in this entire thread did I ever say "LaPierre should be imprisoned"?

 

Also at the same time, this should give you the opportunity to see if i ever even suggested he should be imprisoned too. :thumbsup:

 

Then you can come back to this theory that you seem to think I have about LaPierre and imprisonment... :teehee:

 

And if you want i would be happy to copy and paste the wikipedia article of first amendment in my next post at your request. :thumbsup:

Edited June 7, 2013 by colourwheel

[TRoaches]

Also at the same time, this should give you the opportunity to see if i ever even suggested he should be imprisoned too. :thumbsup:

 

Then you can come back to this theory that you seem to think I have about LaPierre and imprisonment... :teehee:

 

 

It is not a theory. It is precisely what you suggested in this post:

 

 

 

 

Once again, what does "held accountable" mean as you are using it here?

 

 

If you ask me people who are political pundents that constantly keep repeating the false narrative generating this fear and hate that their guns are going to be taken away should make offical public statements in light of recent events leading to these dangerous letters. Would be nice if they could atleast bring to light that no one is going to come take their precious fire arms away. They should take their "personal responsibility" to address their public audience that what they have been preaching is not the truth.

 

And if they persist they should be arrested for continuation of promoting false dangerous political rhetoric that has lead to domestic terror and harm to average american people.

 

Freedom of speech should only be valid until it starts to hurt other people and infringe on other peoples freedoms...

 

 

So what did you mean by that? Because it sure looks like you are advocating the arrest of people who say what LaPierre says. Would you like to clarify that?

[colourwheel]

 

Also at the same time, this should give you the opportunity to see if i ever even suggested he should be imprisoned too. :thumbsup:

 

Then you can come back to this theory that you seem to think I have about LaPierre and imprisonment... :teehee:

 

 

It is not a theory. It is precisely what you suggested in this post:

 

 

 

 

Once again, what does "held accountable" mean as you are using it here?

 

 

If you ask me people who are political pundents that constantly keep repeating the false narrative generating this fear and hate that their guns are going to be taken away should make offical public statements in light of recent events leading to these dangerous letters. Would be nice if they could atleast bring to light that no one is going to come take their precious fire arms away. They should take their "personal responsibility" to address their public audience that what they have been preaching is not the truth.

 

And if they persist they should be arrested for continuation of promoting false dangerous political rhetoric that has lead to domestic terror and harm to average american people.

 

Freedom of speech should only be valid until it starts to hurt other people and infringe on other peoples freedoms...

 

 

So what did you mean by that? Because it sure looks like you are advocating the arrest of people who say what LaPierre says. Would you like to clarify that?

 

 

Arrested!?! :teehee:

 

For starters being arrested hardly equates to being imprisoned... :rolleyes:

 

I was suggesting "if" these letters persist, why shouldn't LaPierre be arrested when he made no official statement condemning these letters and while he keeps continuing to scare gun owners that someone is going to come to their house and take their guns away, while this whole incident is still under investigation? ...and if so, shouldn't he be a prime suspect if the ricin mailer is still at large?

 

Acording to my own research LaPierre is the only person I could find throughout the past few days of research who has claimed(or should i say Speculated) that Obama is going to take away Rifles, shotguns, and handguns...

 

You have stated before in this thread that "Plenty of other people say the same sorts of things" like people in congress, judges, local politicians, scholars, and artists. If so, where do you think they could have gotten this idea in their head from in the 1st place? and further more can you name just one congressman who you claim has said Obama is going to take away rifles, shotguns, and handguns? Because I could not find any Congressman the past few days, while doing research, who has ever been on the record saying such a thing.

Edited June 7, 2013 by colourwheel

[TRoaches]

Arrested!?! :teehee:

 

For starters being arrested hardly equates to being imprisoned... :rolleyes:

The difference is semantically non-existent. They two terms do exactly equate with each other. Being arrested is a form of temporary imprisonment. Imprisonment does not mean "sentenced to prison". It simply means that your freedom has been suspended or limited. If a civilian unlawfully detains another civilian the crime is called "false imprisonment". If a person is arrested and released they were temporarily imprisoned during the arrest. Even if he is arrested and released 1 hour later it is still a form of imprisonment. Read this article for more information.

 

What crime do you think LaPierre should be charged with when he is arrested? For what length of time should he be detained?

 

 

Acording to my own research LaPierre is the only person I could find throughout the past few days of research who has claimed(or should i say Speculated) that Obama is going to take away Rifles, shotguns, and handguns...

 

Considering that you have plagiarized at least two wikipedia articles in this thread I would say that perhaps you are not a very good researcher.

 

 

You have stated before in this thread that "Plenty of other people say the same sorts of things" like people in congress, judges, local politicians, scholars, and artists. If so, where do you think they could have gotten this idea in their head from in the 1st place?

 

I had honestly never heard of LaPierre before you mentioned him, and I have those same ideas in my head as the judges, scholars, artists, etc. It comes from a different understanding and perspective on historical precedent and context, not some geek at the NRA.

 

 

and further more can you name just one congressman who you claim has said Obama is going to take away rifles, shotguns, and handguns? Because I could not find any Congressman the past few days, while doing research, who has ever been on the record saying such a thing.

 

Senator Rand Paul

Edited June 7, 2013 by TRoaches