JASmith Wrote:Thread title: Amendment,right or privilege.
The sheep analogy shows why we have the God-given right to self defense...
The sheep analogy does not address the question that the OP asked, and wanted discussed: "If your right to bear arms can be restricted by past offenses, dishonorable discharge from the armed forces or the use of state-approved medical marijuana, is this truly a universal right?"
And the idea that we have "God-given rights" is unsubstantiated belief, not proven fact.
Fact: Regardless of what some believe to be the origin of individual "rights," it is government that determines and defines our Constitutional rights, legal rights, and legal privileges.
The reality is that the Party in charge controls the 2nd and God help us if the Dem's end up controlling both houses and the White house after this election, which is their goal.
"Wild flower, growin' thru the cracks in the street" - Problem Child by Little Big Town
stanc Wrote:The sheep analogy does not address the question that the OP asked, and wanted discussed: "If your right to bear arms can be restricted by past offenses, dishonorable discharge from the armed forces or the use of state-approved medical marijuana, is this truly a universal right?"
And the idea that we have "God-given rights" is unsubstantiated belief, not proven fact.
Fact: Regardless of what some believe to be the origin of individual "rights," it is government that determines and defines our Constitutional rights, legal rights, and legal privileges.
Actually, rhe sheep analogy is valid for the question posed bynthe thread title.
The more derailed queation is merely a clarification answers to which are also illuminated by the sheep analogy.
Show us facts or facts that prove that government is the ultimate holder of all rights.. Keep in mind that having the preponderance of power does not imply compliance with Gods will.
Rephrasing having the power to destroy, kill, incarcerate, etc. gives power only. What matters is how that power is used.
Yes, this bears on either version of the thread question.
07-21-2020, 11:59 AM (This post was last modified: 07-21-2020, 12:13 PM by FLshooter.)
I have always believed that the second amendment was a right handed down to us by our forefathers. But over the years the government put a bunch of restrictions and regulations on your right to bear arms. What kind of weapons you can own.And who can own them.
I never really cared about owning automatic weapons or bump stocks.What bothered me was that they were removing another piece of the pie, I call my freedom.And thats how its done. They take one little piece at a time, so you have no freedoms left.
As far as persons with mental illnesses and felons not being able to legally own a gun.That part goes into a shady gray area. Of course, we dont want murderers and certified nut jobs walking the street locked and loaded. But there are those who have been red flagged and have not committed a violent crime.Others have been red flagged for using a certain medication.Or for having an injunction put on them by their crazy acts or nutty neighbor.Do you really think a man should have his rights removed because he smoked a little weed? Ive known many cops who drank whiskey like its water after work, but they still retained their job.
And then there are the liberal states, who wrote their own gun laws telling you what you can own and even restricting magazines.I believe that was totally against the Second Amendment. And altough Stanc menstioned Reagan banning automatic weapons and Trump banning bump stocks.Youd be lying to yourself thinking that the liberals ultimate goal is it total gun confiscation.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]16485[/ATTACH] This is why we have the 2ndA and is a God or natural right, which ever you prefer. The world is ruled by force and it is up to the people to determine how far they will be disarmed...If the government has absolute say, then the 2ndA is useless. Disarmament will only occur in this nation if the people allow it... Citizens are the true decision makers, with the question of keeping or losing any right...Without the tools of force, citizens will no longer have that choice....
07-21-2020, 05:48 PM (This post was last modified: 07-21-2020, 06:34 PM by stanc.)
JASmith Wrote:Actually, rhe sheep analogy is valid for the question posed bynthe thread title.
The more derailed queation is merely a clarification answers to which are also illuminated by the sheep analogy.
After thinking about it some more, I agree. According to the sheep analogy, the logical conclusion is that keeping and bearing arms is a privilege, because the sheep are not allowed to have weapons.
JASmith Wrote:Show us facts or facts that prove that government is the ultimate holder of all rights.
:confused: I never said that government is the ultimate holder of all rights. I said that government determines and defines our Constitutional rights, legal rights, and legal privileges.
It was members of government who wrote the Constitution and its amendments, and it is members of government (e.g., legislatures, courts) who decide and define what are legal rights and privileges.
montana Wrote:[ATTACH=CONFIG]16485[/ATTACH] This is why we have the 2ndA...
Germans shooting Belorussians is why we have the 2A???
montana Wrote:The world is ruled by force and it is up to the people to determine how far they will be disarmed...If the government has absolute say, then the 2ndA is useless. Disarmament will only occur in this nation if the people allow it... Citizens are the true decision makers, with the question of keeping or losing any right...Without the tools of force, citizens will no longer have that choice....
Yeah, aside from some minor quibbling, I pretty much agree with that. As I've said before, "rights" only exist in the minds of some humans, so you have only such "rights" as you can convince others to willingly respect, or force them to unwillingly accept.
The harsh reality is that power -- and the will to use it -- are what matters.
