General Discussion

AnotherMcIntosh

(11,064 posts)

9. Whatever they and you have done does not trump the natural right to self-defense.

Reply to Playinghardball (Original post)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 02:40 PM

Apr 2013

Even before this country was formed, John Locke was a liberal whose writings influenced the thinking of rational people. As noted by Wikipedia, he is widely known as the Father of Classical Liberalism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke

In his Second Essay on Civil Government, he explained that the right of self-defense is the first law of nature.
http://www.mcrkba.org/w0.html

In the Heller decision, the Supreme Court recognized the right of self-defense without reasoning that the right of self-defense is dependent upon the Second Amendment.

No one other than a foolish person would claim that the right to self-defense is dependent upon the Second Amendment or whether a person is part of a "well regulated militia."

If you would prefer that law-abiding citizens be disarmed in their homes while people that those in your photo exist, here's some news for you:

It's not going to happen.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

137 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

For all those "interpreters" of the Second Amendment, here's a question for you: [View all] Playinghardball Apr 2013 OP

Point ? nt clarice Apr 2013 #1

Do You Have One? HangOnKids Apr 2013 #17

One what ? nt clarice Apr 2013 #20

This message was self-deleted by its author HangOnKids Apr 2013 #24

Dense? Zoeisright Apr 2013 #69

No, this is Clarice. nt clarice Apr 2013 #126

No. Fortunately the 2A protects an individual right hack89 Apr 2013 #2

heller only gives you the right to a handgun INSIDE the home. in the heller decision scalia said leftyohiolib Apr 2013 #3

Never said it did. It did not, however, link gun ownership to membership in a militia. hack89 Apr 2013 #4

the 1st part of it does, the 2a doesnt start with '...' it's provisional based on a well-regulated leftyohiolib Apr 2013 #7

Heller says otherwise. Go take it up with the Supreme Court. hack89 Apr 2013 #8

"Go take it up with five right-wing, GOP-appointed members of the Supreme Court." <--There; apocalypsehow Apr 2013 #15

That was very kind of you. Thanks. nt hack89 Apr 2013 #18

The President and the party platform say the 2A supports an individual right hack89 Apr 2013 #22

Now the desperate attempt to change the subject. Typical & Textbook. n/t. apocalypsehow Apr 2013 #25

So the President is supporting a RW view of the 2A? hack89 Apr 2013 #28

Changing the subject is not gonna work: once we get five liberals on USSC, *Heller* is overturned. apocalypsehow Apr 2013 #31

Ok Nostradamus hack89 Apr 2013 #38

Wait, not "see": being on the right side of history means my fellow progressives and I will have to apocalypsehow Apr 2013 #43

Shouldn't you change the Democratic party platform first? hack89 Apr 2013 #44

It's going to be great day when we have five progressives on the high court, and *Heller* is apocalypsehow Apr 2013 #47

When pigs fly. Lizzie Poppet Apr 2013 #77

Weren't there also people who predicted ROE V. WADE was going to get overturned? derby378 Apr 2013 #88

Agreed. Lizzie Poppet Apr 2013 #92

Oh, it's going to be overturned alright - soon as we get a fifth progressive justice. n/t. apocalypsehow Apr 2013 #96

Suuuuuure it is. Lizzie Poppet Apr 2013 #98

Yep - it is. By jove, you're catching on. n/t. apocalypsehow Apr 2013 #100

I love how cocksure you guys are about that. Bake Apr 2013 #110

^^^Check this out folks^^^ "you guys" = Liberals and Progressives, Democrats in general. apocalypsehow Apr 2013 #113

No, "you guys" as in gun grabbers. Bake Apr 2013 #128

No, "you guys" is exactly as I stated it above - I've seen your posts on the matter endless times apocalypsehow Apr 2013 #129

And you, please, point to where I referred to "you guys" as all liberals/Democrats. Bake Apr 2013 #130

And now juvenile name-calling and personal attacks, as the truth proves embarrassing. apocalypsehow Apr 2013 #132

But you still can't point to any post of mine where I defended the NRA or assault rifles Bake Apr 2013 #133

Whatever you say. Facts say otherwise, however, and you're really not fooling about *anyone*. n/t. apocalypsehow Apr 2013 #134

Then show the facts. Bake Apr 2013 #135

Asked & answered. *Repeatedly*. apocalypsehow Apr 2013 #136

You have proven nothing except that you are a liar. Bake Apr 2013 #137

Well, until the makeup of the Court changes, what it says is the LAW. Bake Apr 2013 #91

Well, so what? So were Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson. One more progressive justice and Heller apocalypsehow Apr 2013 #99

And who exactly is going to appoint a progressive Justice? Bake Apr 2013 #108

If you don't consider Justice's Sotomayor and Kagan progressives, then I can't help you. apocalypsehow Apr 2013 #112

No, it doesn't. Lizzie Poppet Apr 2013 #33

linquistically? wow that's some clutching at straws- it's as if all those words before the leftyohiolib Apr 2013 #45

That's about all the "RKBA enthusiast" side has got: twisting of consitutional history and language, apocalypsehow Apr 2013 #50

what do they think all those letters in front of 'the right of the people ........" mean? leftyohiolib Apr 2013 #57

They try desperately to explain "well regulated militia" away, because it puts paid to the bogus apocalypsehow Apr 2013 #104

Wow. I didn't know the National Guard existed when they wrote the 2nd Amendment ... Bake Apr 2013 #109

It didn't. But it does now, and is, by law enacted by the people, the new well-regulated militia. jmg257 Apr 2013 #125

you think that's funny read the twisting going on in reply 74 leftyohiolib Apr 2013 #118

If that were my actual opinion and not your strawman, you might have a point. Lizzie Poppet Apr 2013 #74

if they wanted everyone to have guns the 1st part of the amendment wouldnt be there. leftyohiolib Apr 2013 #117

Exactly right - it states PRE-CONDITIONS for exercise of the "right," i.e., belonging to a National apocalypsehow Apr 2013 #35

Constitutional definition of militia: bighart Apr 2013 #72

Constitutional definition of militia: National Guard these days. jmg257 Apr 2013 #76

Per the Legal Information Institute of Cornell University: bighart Apr 2013 #78

Thanks. As I said, only one of those is organized per federal regulations: AKA Well-regulated. jmg257 Apr 2013 #79

LOL. You got it exactly backwards. Lizzie Poppet Apr 2013 #75

Nope, got it exactly correct, all that meaningless verbiage in your reply notwithstanding. n/t. apocalypsehow Apr 2013 #101

Of course that verbiage was "meaningless" to you. Lizzie Poppet Apr 2013 #103

No, it was meaningless because it was meaningless. And continues to be. But nice try. n/t. apocalypsehow Apr 2013 #116

QED Lizzie Poppet Apr 2013 #120

Heller doesn't give anyone any rights slackmaster Apr 2013 #62

again - heller only allows you to have a handgun in the home - and again scalia said this doesnt leftyohiolib Apr 2013 #39

What does that have to do with the OP? hack89 Apr 2013 #40

maybe i misunderstood youwhen you said "It did not, however, link gun ownership to membership in a leftyohiolib Apr 2013 #51

I was referring to Heller. Not a problem. nt hack89 Apr 2013 #53

What they hang their hat on is five right-wing, GOP-appointed USSC justices. Once we get five apocalypsehow Apr 2013 #5

Just like the Scalia court quickly overturned Roe v Wade ... oh wait a second. hack89 Apr 2013 #6

Correct me if I'm in error, premium Apr 2013 #10

Yes, they all agreed that it protects an individual and not a collective right petronius Apr 2013 #67

Thank you. premium Apr 2013 #73

HELLER is here to stay, and the gun-grabbers better get used to it derby378 Apr 2013 #89

With the caveat that I am neither an attorney nor a Constitutional scholar, I don't petronius Apr 2013 #90

Nope. It was made expressly clear by the progressive justices that they would overturn Heller if apocalypsehow Apr 2013 #97

Best method of answering your question NoGOPZone Apr 2013 #105

You are in error. Here's the controlling text of the dissent: apocalypsehow Apr 2013 #115

Five progressive/liberal justices = buh-bye, *Heller* mis-ruling. Better get used to it. n/t. apocalypsehow Apr 2013 #12

Time will tell. nt hack89 Apr 2013 #14

Yep - and as the country is turning "Blue" quite steadily, time is on the side of genuine apocalypsehow Apr 2013 #19

Since the President and the party platform say the 2A supports an individual right hack89 Apr 2013 #21

Five progressive/liberal justices = buh-bye, *Heller* mis-ruling. Better get used to it. n/t. apocalypsehow Apr 2013 #26

Keep believing that. hack89 Apr 2013 #29

It's not a matter of "belief," it's a matter of FACTS. So, yeah: that day is coming. Heller will be apocalypsehow Apr 2013 #30

Predicting the future is never FACTS. It is an opinion. hack89 Apr 2013 #36

You go right ahead and "bookmark" it. Five progressive justices = *Heller* overturned. apocalypsehow Apr 2013 #37

Yes, it's turning blue pintobean Apr 2013 #41

Good one. premium Apr 2013 #49

See what 30 yrs of corporate-funded RW propaganda pushing for fascism can do? baldguy Apr 2013 #55

National guards were created in the late 1800s. former9thward Apr 2013 #11

Ah, semantics games. Typical. National Guard 2013 = "Militia" 1792. But nice try. n/t. apocalypsehow Apr 2013 #13

The 1792 Militia and the 2013 not even remotely the same. former9thward Apr 2013 #64

Yes, but we, the people have decided they prefer a select militia, AKA the National Guard. jmg257 Apr 2013 #80

I am glad you speak for "we, the people" former9thward Apr 2013 #123

I don't claim to speak for the people, I wasn't even alive when those laws were written. jmg257 Apr 2013 #124

Nope. The 2nd amendment was a collective right given to the states AFTER the Constitution was apocalypsehow Apr 2013 #102

You love making stuff up. former9thward Apr 2013 #107

Nope, wrong on all counts. But now that you have been schooled on when the Federalist papers were apocalypsehow Apr 2013 #111

Take it up with James Madison not me. former9thward Apr 2013 #122

Speaking of "making stuff up," here's the *ACTUAL* dissent in Heller by the progressive justices: apocalypsehow Apr 2013 #114

Again I have to school you. former9thward Apr 2013 #121

Have to disagree here. The states already had the power, the duty to maintain militias. jmg257 Apr 2013 #127

Whatever they and you have done does not trump the natural right to self-defense. AnotherMcIntosh Apr 2013 #9

No they don't, but I'm still keeping my firearms. Throd Apr 2013 #16

The President and our party platform says the 2A supports an individual right hack89 Apr 2013 #23

Nope. el_bryanto Apr 2013 #27

The 2nd amendment is bullshit. GeorgeGist Apr 2013 #32

It's been twisted by five right-wing, GOP-appointed justices to mean something it doesn't; apocalypsehow Apr 2013 #34

Majority of Americans believe its an invidual right...so does the president and the Democratic party davidn3600 Apr 2013 #42

Five progressive/liberal justices = buh-bye, *Heller* mis-ruling. Better get used to it. n/t. apocalypsehow Apr 2013 #46

Guns are going nowhere...get used to it. davidn3600 Apr 2013 #48

As no one has said anything about "confiscating guns" save you, your reply is irrelevant. n/t. apocalypsehow Apr 2013 #52

Bans, confiscation...whatever. Guns are going nowhere. davidn3600 Apr 2013 #54

As no one has said anything about "confiscating guns" save you, your reply is *again* irrelevant. nt apocalypsehow Apr 2013 #94

Then what does it matter if Heller is overturned or not? sandmann Apr 2013 #59

Oh, it's going to be overturned alrighty - soon as we get a fifth progressive justice. n/t. apocalypsehow Apr 2013 #95

I'm just trying to follow the logic sandmann Apr 2013 #119

You knew these men personally? HangOnKids Apr 2013 #58

Read their writings...it's right there! davidn3600 Apr 2013 #66

Everyone Has An Opinion HangOnKids Apr 2013 #70

Constitutionally, the states have no more power to disarm the people then the feds do. jmg257 Apr 2013 #65

...and anyone with an adequate understanding of the English language. Lizzie Poppet Apr 2013 #84

Maybe, but until it's repealed it is the law of the land. slackmaster Apr 2013 #61

As opposed to these One_Life_To_Give Apr 2013 #56

I see two probable schizophrenics and one possible personality disorder. slackmaster Apr 2013 #60

They look like three reason we should have more mental institutions - lynne Apr 2013 #63

Exactly. Zoeisright Apr 2013 #68

OP should consider that constant posting of psycho pictures may encourage others. nt Eleanors38 Apr 2013 #71

Poor sentence structure El HangOnKids Apr 2013 #81

A mountain of irony, and you can't find a magnet? pop-fizz... Eleanors38 Apr 2013 #82

Gibberish HangOnKids Apr 2013 #83

You know what to do. nt Eleanors38 Apr 2013 #85

Sorry No HangOnKids Apr 2013 #86

Yep - our "pro gun progressives"* can't come out and OPENLY state their true beliefs on DU apocalypsehow Apr 2013 #93

There are three entities in the 2nd Amendment... krispos42 Apr 2013 #87

No, did any one say that they did? aikoaiko Apr 2013 #106

Nope. They aren't militia at ALL. Tender to the Bone Apr 2013 #131