Guns, Guns Guns

[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.

[White Knight]

[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]




So You are saying we can make a admendment "if we wanted too" that overrides the First Admendment? if so thats insane. and it doesn't make any sense.

[son_of_angels]

Yes, we certainly could. Hey, that's democracy.

[White Knight]

I do agree that the Constitution is not like the Bible at all as far as being infallible and all.

But changing the Constitution's basic foundation is like changing the entire Bible's Foundation, it just falls apart.


If what you speak is true, something about this needs to be done.

[MichaelFilo]

A quick lesson on the Constitution and it's ammendments:

The Constitution is changeable (that is why we have ammednments, to ammend it). The first ten ammendments were added on so that 4 then-soverign-states would sign the Constitution because they had a fear that the Constituation was seeking to take away the basic rights that the Revolutionary war bought back for them. These 4 states were anti-fedralistists. Now, only one case in history is known of any ammednment repealing another part, that is the prohibition on alcohol and then the removal of said prohabtion. Slavery is mentioned in a round-about way in the Constituion (but not explicitly). Why? Because the North had already deep-rooted abolitionist movements in action. They would not allow the idea of slavery to come into the Constitution beacuse they hoped to rid the new country of it completely, but could not explicitly make a statement of freedom for slaves in the Constitution because they South would not sign. Anyways, back to the point, the Constitution never once mentions slaves or slavery. It being abolished has little to do with a reversal of some part of the Constitution and had more to do with the Constitution being a living document.

The Bill of Rights, however, is something that is taboo to touch. Why? Listen to the name, "Bill of Rights". Rights in the United States equal freedom. Now, the first 10 Ammendments are like a taboo to change. It just wouild not fly well, and likely not fly at all.

However, in theory, the Constituation can be scrapped and a whole new one maybe written up. Why, thats how the Constituation was made! Needless to say, that goes for any part of the Constituation as well. Of course, Theory and practicallity are usually conflicting things.

God bless,
Mikey

[Winchester]

The first ten amendments are generally seen as outgrowths of the Bill of Rights. Clarifications if you will.

My right to bear arms sufficient to protect my life is not given by the constitution.

It is merely acknowledged by it.

[Socrates]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' date='Sep 11 2005, 09:32 PM']A quick lesson on the Constitution and it's ammendments:

The Constitution is changeable (that is why we have ammednments, to ammend it). The first ten ammendments were added on so that 4 then-soverign-states would sign the Constitution because they had a fear that the Constituation was seeking to take away the basic rights that the Revolutionary war bought back for them. These 4 states were anti-fedralistists. Now, only one case in history is known of any ammednment repealing another part, that is the prohibition on alcohol and then the removal of said prohabtion. Slavery is mentioned in a round-about way in the Constituion (but not explicitly). Why? Because the North had already deep-rooted abolitionist movements in action. They would not allow the idea of slavery to come into the Constitution beacuse they hoped to rid the new country of it completely, but could not explicitly make a statement of freedom for slaves in the Constitution because they South would not sign. Anyways, back to the point, the Constitution never once mentions slaves or slavery. It being abolished has little to do with a reversal of some part of the Constitution and had more to do with the Constitution being a living document.

The Bill of Rights, however, is something that is taboo to touch. Why? Listen to the name, "Bill of Rights". Rights in the United States equal freedom. Now, the first 10 Ammendments are like a taboo to change.  It just wouild not fly well, and likely not fly at all.

However, in theory, the Constituation can be scrapped and a whole new one maybe written up. Why, thats how the Constituation was made! Needless to say, that goes for any part of the Constituation as well. Of course, Theory and practicallity are usually conflicting things.

God bless,
Mikey
[right][snapback]719981[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The U.S. Constitution was made to provide a legal basis for how the U.S. was to be governed, and to place certain specific limits on the power of the federal government (which, unfortunately, have been rather disregarded).

This "living document" nonsense is a lot of stupid liberal propaganda used to justify re-writing or reinterpreting the Constitution to mean whatever activist judges want ti to mean, rather than what it actually says.

This was NOT the intent of the American founders, and no doubt they would be horrified to see how the Constitution has been twisted and just plain disregarded by lawmakers, judges, and politicians.

Ammendments have an inherent weakness in that they can (and have) been used to change the law from what was orignially stated, but the orignal idea of having ammendments was to clarify the original law in more specific issues that arise, NOT to contradict what was originallly in the law.

"However, in theory, the Constituation can be scrapped and a whole new one maybe written up. Why, thats how the Constituation was made!"
- I cannot even follow what you are trying to say here. This was certainly not the intention of the framers of the Constitution. The Constitution was intended as a document that could simply be scrapped or completely changed on people's whims, but as a solid legal foundation for the United States.
A completely disposable constitution would be pointless.

Yeah, "in theory," we could just burn the Constitution and set up a Communist dictatorship, but whose theory would that be? It would certainly not be the intent of the Constution's original framers.

I'd recomend reading the works of the late Russell Kirk, or some other good conservative political writer/historian, or read a good, solid history of the American founding, rather than this ludicrous liberal drivel you've apparently been hearing.

Edited September 12, 2005 by Socrates

[DeeDee]

I sold all my guns, or my late husband's guns I should say. Those things gave me the creeps.

[son_of_angels]

Really, I never knew that the right to defend one's life in extraordinary means (yes, that means taking another's life) was protected by divine law. In fact, I thought martyrdom was a blessing.

To defend others' lives, by joining the army or using weapons, perhaps an argument could be made, but it seems dubitable. After all, early Christians were often automatically excommunicated for joining an army or completing a death sentence.

Don't put words in God's mouth. The Constitution is not a church document, nor prescribed by an ecumenical council, but rather a human document filled with masonic and enlightenment ideals. IT IS NOT INFALLIBLE NOR UNIVERSALLY APPLICABLE.

[Socrates]

[quote name='son_of_angels' date='Sep 12 2005, 09:45 PM']Really, I never knew that the right to defend one's life in extraordinary means (yes, that means taking another's life) was protected by divine law.  In fact, I thought martyrdom was a blessing.

To defend others' lives, by joining the army or using weapons, perhaps an argument could be made, but it seems dubitable. After all, early Christians were often automatically excommunicated for joining an army or completing a death sentence.

Don't put words in God's mouth.  The Constitution is not a church document, nor prescribed by an ecumenical council, but rather a human document filled with masonic and enlightenment ideals.  IT IS NOT INFALLIBLE NOR UNIVERSALLY APPLICABLE.
[right][snapback]721329[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Whatever the U.S. Constitution says about it (and it clearly protects the right to bear arms), the right to defend one's life is a natural right, and should be protected by any laws which respects natural law.

Martyrdom is heroic (going beyond natural virtue), but it should not be required. Does this mean we should support a government that puts Christians to death, so that more Christians can be "blessed with martyrdom"?

While guns may often take lives, it is not even always necessary to kill with gun to disable the attacker (death is often the unintended consequence of the act of defense.)

Firearms do NOT constitute "extraordinary means" of self-defense. The truth is that in the modern world, where guns exist, having a firearm is often the only practical way of defending oneself or one's loved ones against attackers who are armed with guns. (Or even for an old person or woman to protect themselves against strong young thugs). Most citizens are not superheroes and cannot rely on their superior mystical ninja skills to disable an armed attacker.

Is it better for a man to defend his home, wife and children against armed attackers with a firearm, or for the innocent to be brutally killed because of some policy ruling against such "extraordinary defense."

And truth be told, I'm getting sick of how on phatmass someone seems to always be attacking legitimate principles in the Constitution with the ad-hominem of how evil and masonic it supposedly is, rather than actually arguing about the laws themselves.

Edited September 13, 2005 by Socrates

[photosynthesis]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Sep 13 2005, 12:11 AM']Most citizens are not superheroes and cannot rely on their superior mystical ninja skills to disable an armed attacker.   
[right][snapback]721376[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
i rely on my superior mystical ninja skills just fine