No Second Amendment in the UK

[Deleted member 28227]

You didn't ask a question but you referenced the Mulford Act. That was a gun control law put in place so that the government would have more control over its citizens. That particular legislation was in response to the Black Panther Party and was intended to reduce their power. For the record, I'm against gun control, no matter which party is trying to grab the power.

Full points, and consistency on position.

No further questions.

 

[LWC55]

Please find me any binding SCOTUS legal case that agrees with you prior to Heller.

But just to be clear, with your logic gay marriage and the right to an abortion have been guaranteed rights in the US since 1860’s (original text of equal protection). That will come as quite a surprise to many.

You are the one that keeps making the claim. Where are the binding SCOTUS legal cases that said I didn't have the personal right to bear arms prior to Heller?

I didn't know that abortion or marriage were guaranteed rights, no matter your sexual orientation. Where are they listed in the constitution?

 

[VikingsGuy]

You are the one that keeps making the claim. Where are the binding SCOTUS legal cases that said I didn't have the personal right to bear arms prior to Heller?

I didn't know that abortion or marriage were guaranteed rights, no matter your sexual orientation. Where are they listed in the constitution?

So, you are saying that your own personal definitions of the constitution are the binding ones? Pretty sure that is the definition of anarchy, not a nation of laws not men.

 

[Europe]

We will see. We survived far more overt pro communist ideology by “youth” in the 1960’s - and all the while with no constitutional support for a personal right to bear arms at all from the 2A. That didn’t show up until 2008 with Heller, and by then all those radicals we suburbanites with mortgages and $100 lululemon leggings. My bet is we survive this too if we just calm down a bit.

We already had a mortgage by 1960, but I dont remember the leggings you refer too, but pantyhose was all the rage (-;

And I hope and pray you are correct, but it is the extreme pandering that some politicians are engaged in at this time, that we did not see in the 60's and that does worry me a bit. Obviously not for me as I will be gone soon, but my hope, my prayers are that my children, grandchildren, great grandchildren will have the opportunity to live in the same democratic country that I have had a privilege of living in.

I know we ( U>S>A> ) are not where Germay was in the 1930's but I remember WW II and the systematic way they ask the Jewish people to register, then put notifications in the window of their place of business, then to wear the star on their clothing, then to live in one place, and then---6 million were murdered. One step at a time, not all at one time and of course it was done for the "good of the people" ----obviously not for the good of ALL the people. I dont believe WE ( Americans ) are at that point ,obviously, but it is the taking away, a little bit at a time , approach that worries me. Just the thoughts of on old women however. AND let me be clear I dont claim to have "THE" answer. But I am praying for America more than I have in the past.

 

[FI460]

You are the one that keeps making the claim. Where are the binding SCOTUS legal cases that said I didn't have the personal right to bear arms prior to Heller?

I didn't know that abortion or marriage were guaranteed rights, no matter your sexual orientation. Where are they listed in the constitution?

14th amendment? Possibly the 9th amendment?

 

[406dn]

I'm old enough to remember the 60's pretty well. I remember politicians pandering with fervor.

George Wallace will not be recorded as a statesman by most. I actually got to "legally" skip class in high school to go to his stop in my then home town. He came across to me as pretty wound up.

There were also many political assassinations thru out the 60's.

The past is never as serene as our memories suggest.

 

[Sytes]

The 2A won't prevent tyranny.

Fitting to share, considering the thread origination.

Battles of Lexington and Concord ‑ Winner, Date, Summary | HISTORY

The Battles of Lexington and Concord, fought between colonial militiamen and British Redcoats on April 19, 1775, kicked off the American Revolutionary War.

www.history.com

On the night of April 18, 1775, hundreds of British troops marched from Boston to nearby Concord in order to seize an arms cache.

SAJ, I do believe you and I will not agree. Cheers for your opinion.

 

[LWC55]

So, you are saying that your own personal definitions of the constitution are the binding ones? Pretty sure that is the definition of anarchy, not a nation of laws not men.

Not my definition: 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.

I'm not the one claiming that those words didn't really mean what we have always known they meant....until 2008. Our forefathers who fought and died for that right would likely be very surprised to know that the right they were fighting for never really existed. Even after it was put into the US Constitution. That we only got that right 12 years ago.
I say that is baloney. Where is the legal precedent to back your claim?

 

[Sytes]

But I am praying for America more than I have in the past.

Amen. Each election, both legislative and executive, more so.

 

[SAJ-99]

SAJ, I do believe you and I will not agree. Cheers for your opinion.

The arms cache was the US government's cache of arms. Americans were not well armed and we didn't have an army, so we bought most arms from the French. Maybe the is your point not sure the relevance with 2A.

 

[Sytes]

Wow...
The tyranny Americans fought created our bill of rights upon our success.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Fitting to share, considering the thread origination.

Battles of Lexington and Concord ‑ Winner, Date, Summary | HISTORY

The Battles of Lexington and Concord, fought between colonial militiamen and British Redcoats on April 19, 1775, kicked off the American Revolutionary War.

www.history.com

SAJ, I do believe you and I will not agree. Cheers for your opinion.

Maybe Whiskey Rebellion might be better analogy.

 

[Sytes]

Maybe Whiskey Rebellion might be better analogy.

The entire American Revolution is full of equal analogies when discussing parallels... tyranny and a direct ligeage of our own creation of our second amendment.

 

[FI460]

The entire American Revolution is full of equal analogies when discussing parallels... tyranny and a direct ligeage of our own creation of our second amendment.

Do the lessons of the founders negate discussion on what reasonable restrictions might be?

 

[Sytes]

History defines humans. Hitler, lest 75 years we forget... is a prime example.

 

[LWC55]

Do the lessons of the founders negate discussion on what reasonable restrictions might be?

Depends on whose power you are trying to restrict. 2A was written to restrict the government's power. Not the other way around.

 

[FI460]

Neither of you actually addressed the question though. Should the percieved intent of the founders (which was not unanimous) negate any discussion of what might be considered reasonable restrictions?

Edit: though the context should have made it clear I'm talking about restrictions on citizens.

To my earlier point, is it anti 2A/ unconstitutional in your mind for the state to require firearms be secured when not in use? Not interested in whether or not you agree with the proposal, just whether or not the state has the authority.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Not my definition: 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.

I'm not the one claiming that those words didn't really mean what we have always known they meant....until 2008. Our forefathers who fought and died for that right would likely be very surprised to know that the right they were fighting for never really existed. Even after it was put into the US Constitution. That we only got that right 12 years ago.
I say that is baloney. Where is the legal precedent to back your claim?

I have already cited current and binding precedent. Now your turn to refute with more than your personal preference.

Until 12 years ago they kept the words “well regulated Militia” in the definition - you conveniently chose to not highlight that part. How about the headline, “Despite expectations by many that Hillary Clinton was going to be elected president, Donald Trump won.” Wow, if Hillary won, why is Trump in the White House?

 

[Sytes]

Cheers guys. Its been an interesting discussion.

I bow out. Respect towards everyone's opinion.

 

[LWC55]

I have already cited current and binding precedent. Now your turn to refute with more than your personal preference.

Until 12 years ago they kept the words “well regulated Militia” in the definition - you conveniently chose to not highlight that part. How about the headline, “Despite expectations by many that Hillary Clinton was going to be elected president, Donald Trump won.” Wow, if Hillary won, why is Trump in the White House?

Impossible to prove something that never existed. Heller confirmed what 99% of people already knew. There's always that 1% whack job faction that say things mean something that they don't. Some say men are women because they call themselves women. Doesn't make it true.