Guns, Guns Guns

[morostheos]

LOL....i was reading this post and i was like...wow...i haven't seen hyper around in a really long time! then i realized this thread was started way back in 2003!

Hyper and Winchester had their own board back then....those were the days

[kateri05]

yea the we miss hyper club has popped up on many threads because people have been resurrecting REALLY old ones the past few days.

hyper..... where arrrrre youuuuuuuu?

[Socrates]

I voted "an unlimited right," though this is somewhat vaguely worded. The founding fathers saw an armed citizenry as a safeguard against a tyrannical government. So it was about serious weaponry - the issue wasn't about hunting.

I picked "unlimited" because the poll was about "firearms." However, I would argue against some extreme interpretation. A libertarian I talked to once said the Second Amendment would protect such things as nuclear bombs and biological weapons (as they would provide the ony real deterrent against a modern government.) Obviously, I do not think any weapon which has no purpose but mass-destruction should be protected by law! As soon as they find someone concocting a plague in his basement, he should be locked up and should get the chair!

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Sep 11 2005, 12:02 AM']I voted "an unlimited right," though this is somewhat vaguely worded.  The founding fathers saw an armed citizenry as a safeguard against a tyrannical government.  So it was about serious weaponry - the issue wasn't about hunting.

I picked "unlimited" because the poll was about "firearms."  However, I would argue against some extreme interpretation.  A libertarian I talked to once said the Second Amendment would protect such things as nuclear bombs and biological weapons (as they would provide the ony real deterrent against a modern government.)  Obviously, I do not think any weapon which has no purpose but mass-destruction should be protected by law!  As soon as they find someone concocting a plague in his basement, he should be locked up and should get the chair!
[right][snapback]718823[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Ditto. Nothing more to add at this time.

[RC_]

I'm a hunter and sportsman, and have fired everything from a single shot shotgun to an semi-auto handgun to a fully auto rifle.

All the guns my family owns have killed fewer people than Ted Kennedy's car.

[White Knight]

Americans have the right to own and bare firearms and other arms "Axes, and Hammers and Swords"


This admendment was put in our Supreme Law of the Land as a fail safe, if all hell broke lose, we'd be able to do something about it, as opposed to what happened to us before our Revolutionary War, when the British took all the firarms and locked them up, they were oppressing the American people, and it wasn't until we stole the firearms thats when we were able and in the condiction to wage the Revolutionary War.


the Second Adendment is ment to prevent this very thing from happening again.


Because if something ever screwed up wit hout government, we'd need to be able to restore order to it.

[son_of_angels]

Yes, yes, I think, based on the constitution, and on simple reason any capable person has the right to own a firearm if he/she wants one.

HOWEVER, people do not have that right because it is an intrinsic right given them by natural moral law. Natural law prescribes a great many rights, which many constitutions recognize, but this is not one of them. After all, moral law could not say that in every case a person has the right to hold the means to kill another human being.

In other words, thank God, Americans, that you have this privilege from the Constitution, but keep in mind that the privilege CAN be denied to you by God, his Church, or even by amendment to the Constitution, without transgressing the boundaries of natural moral law.

[White Knight]

An admendment cannot be placed in the Constitution if it is considered to condradict the rights of the American people, otherwise our Law would be redudant.


If something is unconstitutional it will not be placed in the consititution.


So therefore no one can take away our rights or laws stated in the Constitution that garuntee our way of life. Inless the entire document was destroyed or Damaged.

[son_of_angels]

That's nonsense you just pulled out of a hat. Anyone can take away our rights and our laws if they have authority to do so. The Constitution is neither the Bible, nor Sacred Tradition, nor Magisterial Teaching.

Legally, anything can be changed in the Constitution by amendment, btw.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='son_of_angels' date='Sep 11 2005, 08:17 AM']Yes, yes, I think, based on the constitution, and on simple reason any capable person has the right to own a firearm if he/she wants one.

HOWEVER, people do not have that right because it is an intrinsic right given them by natural moral law.  Natural law prescribes a great many rights, which many constitutions recognize, but this is not one of them.  After all, moral law could not say that in every case a person has the right to hold the means to kill another human being.

In other words, thank God, Americans, that you have this privilege from the Constitution, but keep in mind that the privilege CAN be denied to you by God, his Church, or even by amendment to the Constitution, without transgressing the boundaries of natural moral law.
[right][snapback]719133[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


I would completly disagree, I would contend that he right to defend oneself is verymuch part of the moral Law and that right extends to having the capacity to defend oneself agianst any and all including the government who might threaten that life, this requires the maens to effectively do so infact the posession of arms is a right which comes fromthe Moral Law, what ever arms are in common use of the day.

[White Knight]

[quote name='son_of_angels' date='Sep 11 2005, 12:45 PM']That's nonsense you just pulled out of a hat.  Anyone can take away our rights and our laws if they have authority to do so.  The Constitution is neither the Bible, nor Sacred Tradition, nor Magisterial Teaching.

Legally, anything can be changed in the Constitution by amendment, btw.
[right][snapback]719359[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


No it cannot because its rendered unconstitutional, and violates our rights.


You cannot admend the Constitution if that admendment condradicts another admendment, otherwise the document falls apart and you have nothing.

Like the First Admendment the Bill of Rights, we cannot pass anything that condradicts nor changes it, because what stops a complete makeover of the Constitution? if we did that? If we change or take away to the Constitution what stops this country from being changed compeltely by one admendment or two or a series?


No the Constitution is not Sacred Scripture, nor is it anything, but the Law of our Land the Supreme Law, we cannot do anything that condradicts it at all.

[son_of_angels]

Actually, you are quite wrong. One amendment made drinking illegal in every state of Union, another withdrew that amendment. Another amendment changed the method of electing Senators, another made slavery illegal, whereas in the original Constitution slavery was recognized.

NOTHING stops a complete makeover of the Constitution, except the process that is required to amend it, which itself can be amended, if the original formula is used to pass the amendment.

I suggest you actually read the Constitution before you render judgments on it. After all, what kind of a document, conceived and written by a group with ties to the freemasons, that reduces slaves to amounting to 3/4 the value of an American citizen, can claim either perfection or immutability. That's nonsense and not supported by the writers of the Constitution themselves.

[son_of_angels]

oops

Edited September 11, 2005 by son_of_angels

[son_of_angels]

oops

Edited September 11, 2005 by son_of_angels

[Socrates]

[quote name='son_of_angels' date='Sep 11 2005, 06:20 PM']Actually, you are quite wrong.  One amendment made drinking illegal in every state of Union, another withdrew that amendment.  Another amendment changed the method of electing Senators, another made slavery illegal, whereas in the original Constitution slavery was recognized.

NOTHING stops a complete makeover of the Constitution, except the process that is required to amend it, which itself can be amended, if the original formula is used to pass the amendment.

I suggest you actually read the Constitution before you render judgments on it.  After all, what kind of a document, conceived and written by a group with ties to the freemasons, that reduces slaves to amounting to 3/4 the value of an American citizen, can claim either perfection or immutability.  That's nonsense and not supported by the writers of the Constitution themselves.
[right][snapback]719698[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I don't believe the U.S. Constitution is infallible or "sacred scripture" or any such nonsense, but I do beleive that overall it is a wisely written document, which (as originally written) provides a number of valuable safeguards against government tyranny. It provides the legal basis for federal law and government in this country, and should be respected as such.

The central problem is that words on any piece of paper can be ammended, or ignored, or (mis)"interpreted" beyond all recognition by activist judges and politicians.

Such radical re-interpretation of the constitution by liberal activist to mean things other than its literal meaning as intended by the framers has given rise to all sorts of travesties, including Roe v. Wade.

If the founders intended the Constitution to be able to be simply changed into whatever people decided, there would be absolutely no purpose in writing up a constitution to beggin with!

I believe American conservatives should fight to return to constitutional principles and fight the whole trend of activist judging and the wholesale rape of the constitution which has taken place over the years.