Articles
   
       
Pics/Video
       
Wake 101
   
       
       
Shop
Search
 
 
 
 
 
Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
WakeWorld Home
Email Password
Go Back   WakeWorld > Non-Wakeboarding Discussion

Share 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       02-05-2016, 1:04 PM Reply   
Good news for gun lovers and a challenge to think...

Quote:
Originally Posted by deltahoosier View Post
States passing gun laws that are against the 2nd amendment.
Delta got me interested in researching a topic I previously cared little about at the same time this was in the news.

http://bearingarms.com/ruling-maryla...ol-nationwide/

In response to a post on FB claiming they hoped it went to the SC because Clarance Thomas clearly understands the spirit of Constitution in its literal, historical founding and in context and would uphold the ruling. I commented "just the opposite" not because I believed he wouldn't uphold the ruling but because the framer's intent would need to be ignored to uphold the ruling. The person shot back an accusation of me supporting activism from the bench of which I responded that the 2nd is clear about the framer's intent and it would have to be deemed superflous and not relevant. I wasn't advocating the right one way or the other just stating that it's very easy to understand the intent and the 2nd is a bit of an anacronism in today's society.

I decided to research the subject and found that for 220 years since the penning of the Constitution the 2nd was always a collective right, which is entirely consistent with the wording. Then in 2008 the SC ruled it was an individual right. So it was an extreme case of irony to object to the concept of activism from the bench. If you believe that the 2nd is an individual right then you need to be comfortable with activism from the bench.

Last edited by fly135; 02-05-2016 at 1:06 PM.
Old    deltahoosier            02-05-2016, 1:14 PM Reply   
Isn't a collective made up of individuals?
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       02-05-2016, 1:27 PM Reply   
LOL, activism from the wakeboard forum.
Old     (snyder)      Join Date: Feb 2006       02-05-2016, 2:51 PM Reply   
1822 Bliss vs. Commonwealth affirms individual right.
1856 Dred Scott v. Sandford upholds individual right
1934 National Firearms Act first to apply restrictions but not really discusses individual vs. collective issue but was placing restrictions on "individual" ownership.
1938 Federal Firearms Act further restrictions on who can own but still not based on individual vs. collective interpretation. but was placing restrictions on "individual" ownership.
1968 Gun Control Act... further restrictions still.
1994 Brady Act and AW ban. sunset in 2004
2008 D.C v. Heller moves back toward individual right.
2010 McDonald v. Chicago further affirmation of individual right.
and now Kolbe v. Maryland. pro-individual right.

It's only been somewhat viewed as a "collective" side argument for 74 of the past 200+ years (1934 to 2008).
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       02-05-2016, 3:17 PM Reply   
Thanks for adding that. It led me to this...

http://www.justice.gov/sites/default...v028-p0126.pdf

So I should also add that my claim is based on US SC decisions and I'm searching to see if any of those are.

1822 Bliss - Related to the Kentucky state constitution and was determined to be an erroneous decision in 1850.
??? Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), was a landmark decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court held that African Americans, whether enslaved or free, could not be American citizens and therefore had no standing to sue in federal court

Kind of stopped after first two. Can look later. But it appears that none of these decisions have anything to do with the US SC rulling on collective vs individual rights and so... I still believe that it's 220 years of collective rights until 2008.
Old    deltahoosier            02-05-2016, 3:55 PM Reply   
Amendment II

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.

It says people. it does not say a collective. People are people.

col·lec·tive
kəˈlektiv/
adjective
adjective: collective

1.
done by people acting as a group.
"a collective protest"
belonging or relating to all the members of a group.
"ministers who share collective responsibility"
synonyms: common, shared, joint, combined, mutual, communal, pooled; More
united, allied, cooperative, collaborative
"our collective interests"
antonyms: individual
taken as a whole; aggregate.
"the collective power of the workforce"

noun
noun: collective; plural noun: collectives

1.
a cooperative enterprise.
a collective farm.

Origin
Old    deltahoosier            02-05-2016, 4:08 PM Reply   
Interesting argument by someone on a board discussing this arguement John. I think this goes back to your contention about the Constitution no granting any individual rights:

When the Framers of the Constitution in the Federal Convention created the Constitution, they it no Bill of Rights and hence no 2nd Amendment. But when it came around the 13 States during the Ratification debates, those typically for the Constitution argued that they did not need a Bill of Rights because it was understood BY ALL that the Constitution, the document that created and framed the Federal Government did not grant any more powers than were explicitly stated in the Constitution. Those rights in the Bill of Rights were Pre-existing, Pre-Constitutional. So to clear up one thing, the Constitution DID NOT GRANT anybody any rights. The Bill of Rights DID NOT GRANT anybody any rights. Those were pre-existing rights. The Bill of Rights are SOME or our Pre-Existing, Inalienable, natural rights. So it’s not a question of whether the 2nd Amendment is supposed to protect an individual or collective right to keep and bear arms. The real question is “was the Federal Government granted the power to legislate, ban or control the right to keep and bear arms by either the individual or the collective? The answer. NO WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION was the Federal Government granted any powers to take away an individual’s right to Free Speech, Freedom to express a Religion, Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Freedom from Unlawful Searches and Seizures, etc. Was the Federal Government granted the blanket power to take away these rights? ABSOLUTELY NOT!
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       02-05-2016, 5:17 PM Reply   
No, this has nothing to do with that statement. And if you go dig it up I'm pretty sure I didn't say "no individual rights". It was more that the Constitution has fewer than I perceive people as believing it does and when you challenged it I backed off.

And as far as the rest of what you wrote I'm having trouble understanding it.

"NO WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION was the Federal Government granted any powers to take away an individual’s right to Free Speech"

I don't get this at all. Why have a document that explicitly defines rights the govt can't take away if the govt can't take away any right?

The same with all those other rights that the Constitution explicitly mentions. It's a friviolous endevour to put those things in a Constitution if it already guaranteed with out saying it.

"The Bill of Rights are SOME or our Pre-Existing, Inalienable, natural rights."

Inalienable rights are referenced in the Declaration of Independance. We defined some and put them in the Constitution to make law protect them. Without protection a natural right is only a moral with no teeth. So I guess I just answered the question above. Are you trying to say that gun ownership was defined as an inalienable right?
Old    deltahoosier            02-05-2016, 5:53 PM Reply   
It was a copy paste from someone's argument on the topic. I think the person was arguing that originally the the founding fathers did not have a bill of rights in the constitution. They were already assumed as natural rights so why include them. I think the person was saying that the bill of rights was included as a afterthought kind of deal where they may as well say it out loud. The point is, if it is assumed to be a natural right of the people, it does not mater that it is a collective or individual right because it is not something that can not be taken away or given by the constitution. It is simply a right.
Old    deltahoosier            02-05-2016, 5:55 PM Reply   
oops. I did not read of content well enough. Yes. Owning a gun is a inalienable right just like freedom of religion and speech. I think that is what the person is arguing.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       02-05-2016, 7:06 PM Reply   
Inalienable rights must be defined. So that's what the Constitution does. The 2nd has been defined as a collective right for 220 years. The inalienable right to own weapons under the auspices of a well regulated militia. Judicial activism has redefined it as an individual right not because it demonstrated that was the framer's intention but because it's recognized that inalienable rights must be also discovered because the framers didn't get them all. I doubt that was the reasoning for this one. More like the court did it because it could LOL.

But discovering that blacks have an inalienable right to not be enslaved. Or the inalienable right for blacks to be citizens, vote, and women to vote. What was intended to be a derogatory label ironically applies to those who likely coined for that purpose. Or known inalienable rights in the Civil Rights act that aren't in the Constitution.

So now one can see how things that aren't in the Constitution can still be recognized as inalienable rights like gay marriage. They are revealed over time.

Last edited by fly135; 02-05-2016 at 7:08 PM.
Old     (Froggy)      Join Date: Nov 2013       02-25-2016, 5:00 AM Reply   
Blacks are still enslaved through welfare, food stamps ,housing, Obama Care and other social programs. To receive these benefits you must bow to the liberals in Washington if you try to try to better yourself they will take away your support. So now we have generations depending on their masters for life. How is that different than life on the plantation?
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       02-25-2016, 7:14 AM Reply   
How are people enslaved through Obamacare? You clearly have no clue. If anything is enslaving poor people it's making them compete against impoverished labor in other countries.
Old     (wakemitch)      Join Date: Jun 2005       02-25-2016, 8:42 AM Reply   
As someone who had to depend on obamacare while going back to school and changing careers, I can tell you that while I was happy to have some kind of healthcare that I could afford to be on, if I actually got hurt I would have been in debt for a long time. At the lower levels even with the subsidies, the deductibles were crazy and I was just as afraid to go to the doctor as I was when I had no insurance. But if I had a catastrophic injury or illness, I would have been very lucky to have obamacare.

People who think obamacare makes life so easy for the poor are ridiculous. It merely gives them a little bit of help to still end up in debt because of the current health care system.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       02-25-2016, 9:25 AM Reply   
The irony here is that being "enslaved" is what characterized our HC system even more before Obamacare. Before the ACA HC was socialized in the workplace. Meaning you could insure a family with poor health history and the govt would kick in for part of your premiums. If you tried to go out and be an entrepreneur outside the established big business you lost access to those benefits. Meaning that the system was designed to lock you into being an employee. And on top of that it was designed such that HI could kick you to the curb if you got too sick to work. The HI/HC system is still encumbered by that sort of philosophy. Only a little less after the ACA.

To claim that Obamacare is enslaving people over what we had before is indicative of listening to too much of other people's opinions in the media and refusing to think for yourself. All of the factors that drive up HC costs and exclude people from the system with discrimination are easy to understand, but people refuse to use their own minds and prefer to be tools of the media.
Old     (wakemetoday)      Join Date: Mar 2006       02-26-2016, 6:20 AM Reply   
Even though the ACA has a few good items, such as allowing children to stay on parents' insurance until 26, IMHO, it's nothing more that a regressive tax that did nothing to actual help with the cost or availability of AFFORDABLE insurance. I never thought about enslaving people, but we not only no longer have a choice to purchase insurance, but also what types of insurance we have to purchase have been limited-- unless we pay a penalty--so in a sense, the public has been enslaved because another freedom of choice has been taken from us. How long will it be before they decide we all have buy something else or be penalized? The people who designed the web site did well financially though, but couldn't insurance be purchase before that was designed?
Old     (wakemetoday)      Join Date: Mar 2006       02-26-2016, 6:24 AM Reply   
UUUGGGHHH!! I hate typing. Let me try this again: Even though the ACA has a few good items, such as allowing children to stay on their parents' insurance until 26, IMHO, it's nothing more than a regressive tax that did nothing to actual help with the cost or availability of AFFORDABLE insurance. I never thought about enslaving people, but we not only no longer have a choice to purchase insurance, but also what types of insurance we have to purchase have been limited-- unless we pay a penalty--so in a sense, the public has been enslaved because another freedom of choice has been taken from us. How long will it be before they decide we all have buy something else or be penalized? The people who designed the web site did well financially though, but couldn't insurance be purchase before that was designed?
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       02-26-2016, 7:36 AM Reply   
The flip side is... what kind of freedom is it when you can't get insurance at any price, but people who have a job that provides insurance not only get it a price that doesn't consider their family's health but the govt also kicks in 40% of the payments. Bottom line is that the ACA eliminated that sort of discrimination to some extent. And it is affordable for people who couldn't previously afford it but now get subsidies. You have to remember that before the ACA only people who were on employer plans got subsidies.
Old     (DenverRider)      Join Date: Feb 2013       02-26-2016, 8:05 AM Reply   
You also don't have to have health insurance or pay a penalty. The law is quite toothless in that respect. You simply check the box that says you had health insurance and move on. If an audit ever occurs, the IRS was given no authority to collect the fine with the exception of collecting it from a refund. If you are paying too much initially and require a refund, then you need to change your exemptions on your W-2 or lower your quarterly payments if you are self employed. Refunds are for chumps. Paying the fine is for chumps.

The ACA is certainly flawed but when your only recourse is to throw it in the trash and go back to the old extremely flawed system then you don't have a solution. I'd like to see someone propose some things that would enhance or fix problems with the ACA. I'd actually like to be able to buy into Medicaid. My kids have Medicaid because I adopted them from foster care. Doctors were initially a bit difficult to find but after that, it is an incredibly awesome program and it controls costs by telling institutions what they will be allowed to charge for a given procedure. That is what needs to happen more than anything. Doctors don't make too much money but upper level administration makes WAY too much money.
Old     (DenverRider)      Join Date: Feb 2013       02-26-2016, 8:08 AM Reply   
As far as the original topic of the 2nd amendment is concerned, I believe that if Democrats and liberals focused on more important issues and let the 2nd amendment become a non-issue, we could bring on much more independent support, get a real majority in congress, and get some real things done for the betterment of our country instead of constantly going back and forth with this guns vs. abortion debacle.
Old     (joeshmoe)      Join Date: Jan 2003       03-13-2016, 5:18 AM Reply   
Abortion is an individual right, as of now. Now, some judges see it as collective right, they think that the community is better off if they do not let these individuals have their abortion, but then the same judges want individual to have the right to bear arms? Hypocrisy!!
John, I am pretty sure individuals had the right to bear arms 200 years ago, if you did not have a gun, you did not survive, they did not have welfare back then and the individual was reponsible for his own well being. Also, 200 years ago, each individual had as much fire power as the u.s. government, so the government could have easily been taken over by the people. The government might have not wanted the states to have their military armies, thus the insertion of a well regulated militia in the second ammendment. The ammendment states that the right of the people to bear arms, shall not be infringed And the people can combine together to make an army. If these rights were understood to be collective back then there would have been an uprising or another ammendment. The very fact that the federal government has not made any laws against an individual's rights to bear arms in over 200 years should be reason enough to suspect that it is an individual right. And even when the federal laws were implemented, it wasn't about individual rights, it was about transporting the guns in the mail. Even in the 20th century the federal government has not cracked down on an individual's right to bear arms, all of the federal laws have been for registering the guns(I know, first step to take all guns away) or to limit the fire power of the gun (no, you can't keep a heat seeking balistic misile in your living room) NOTHING about an individual's right to own a firearm! So this collectivism talk scares me if the supreme Court judges are actually thinking that way, they probably should not be on the bench, because they are twisting what the 2nd ammendment is actually saying.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       03-13-2016, 9:05 AM Reply   
Steve, you are confusing rights as enumerated by the Constitution and legal rights. If there are no laws against owning a gun then you have a legal right. If the Constitution claims you have an individual right then laws cannot be made that take it away. You are quoting only part of the 2nd amendment, which is like telling half truths to get people to draw the incorrect conclusion. A technique the media is famous for (cough cough.. highly successful 24/7 news network).

It is you who is twisting the 2nd amendment. You are claiming that part of the 2nd is superfluous and unnecessary language put in for absolutely no reason other than to apparently fill up space. Maybe they had a minimum word count per amendment. If you were to research the subject rather than relying on conjecture to advice your claim then you would find out that what I stated was correct. The fact is that despite the collective right interpretation that is entirely consistent with the wording of the 2nd, the federal govt hasn't made laws restricting gun ownership in any significant way. So after 220 years of this people are suddenly afraid that the feds are going to take away our guns. Entirely consistent with a society that has been tooled by the media and politicians. Then self tooled by their own pitchforks with social media. There are far too many private gun owners in the US for the govt to take away their guns.
Old     (joeshmoe)      Join Date: Jan 2003       03-14-2016, 5:59 AM Reply   
A well regulated militia,

Just by using the term militia, meant you were required to bring your own gun from home. Did you know that back then everyone from the age of 16-60 was required to be in the militia?

Being necessary to the security of a free state,

This statement basically states it's necessary to have the people armed.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms,

I THINK this part SHOULD be self explanatory.

Shall not be infringed.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms, will not be taken away.

I don't think I left anything out, at that time, with the new government, the people saw it necessary to keep and bear arms, to keep their freedom.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       03-14-2016, 7:26 AM Reply   
It is self-explanatory. The right to possess a gun is predicated on a specific need. A collective need. Regardless, you only need to research the topic to find out that a "collective" need was the interpretation by the judicial branch for 220 years. A reinterpretation in 2008 is indicative of the same "legislation from the bench" that the self-proclaimed Constitutionalists have been complaining about, except when it occurs in favor of their prejudices. I'm not complaining about the right to own guns, and I'm not complaining about legislation from the bench. I'm simply pointing out hypocrisy.
Old     (joeshmoe)      Join Date: Jan 2003       03-14-2016, 10:38 AM Reply   
So the second ammendment Is just hanging on by a thread? I guess there are 5 supreme court judges that have my twisted view of the second ammendment And if Hillary gets elected, the second ammendment will become null and void because it will not be for the individual right, but for the collective right? This also advocates the rights position that the government is trying to take away our guns, and I thought they were just blowing smoke and telling more lies. I never would have believed that the right to bear arms ammendment would lead to the position that an individual does not have the right to a gun and that right could be infringed.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       03-14-2016, 11:56 AM Reply   
Why do you have so much trouble with researching the facts? When the SC rules on an issue then it becomes the law of the land. I agree that the 2008 decision ruled that the 2nd gives you an individual right. I also agree that the SC gives you the right to same sex marriage and gives women the right to abortion. After 2008 we have an individual right to guns, but before we had a collective right. IOW, the SC is the official translator of the Constitution and I am not disputing that.

Now whether the SC's translation is twisted or not is another issue. Also Hillary getting elected doesn't have anything to do with your Constitutional rights unless you are referring to a change in the ideology of the court. But that's the way it works. The framers of the Constitutional were not capable of enumerating all of our inherent rights. Those rights revealed themselves over time and the SC has reacted accordingly. I guess you have a problem with the "well regulated" part of the 2nd. It's simply your opinion (and the opinion of the 2008 SC court) that if the govt actually did try to regulate weapons that it would infringe on your 2nd amendment rights. Which is why until the opinion of the court changes your opinion is law.

But the 2nd amendment clearly associates your right to own a gun with being regulated. So the reality is that you and apparently the 2008 SC decided the opening phase of the 2nd is null and void. The 2nd isn't hanging by a thread. The first part was just tossed in the trash after 220 years.

Last edited by fly135; 03-14-2016 at 11:58 AM.
Old     (barry)      Join Date: Apr 2002       03-14-2016, 3:30 PM Reply   
Joe,
Time cannot be saved, it can only be spent, and if not spent wisely and well, it is wasted.
Old     (joeshmoe)      Join Date: Jan 2003       03-15-2016, 8:18 AM Reply   
Yes Barry, that is why I bought a house in florida on a canal,100 yds from a lake that is one mile long and wakeboard every day!
Old     (barry)      Join Date: Apr 2002       03-15-2016, 9:41 AM Reply   
Well...Carry on!

Reply
Share 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 8:02 PM.

Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
Wake World Home

 

© 2019 eWake, Inc.    
Advertise    |    Contact    |    Terms of Use    |    Privacy Policy    |    Report Abuse    |    Conduct    |    About Us