Utah Guns Forum banner
41 - 58 of 58 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,928 Posts
Tarzan1888 said:
As I read the Second Amendment, I read it as enumerating the right of the people, both individually and collectively, to have and bear arms to protect themselves from all threats, both domestic and foreign.

This includes and is not limited to personal and family protection and all other threats that you can think of. A government run amok is certainly included in that group.

How you chose to carry that weapon should be your individual preference.

Tarzan
+1 I agree that it does include personal self defense. From ANY threat.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,757 Posts
Tarzan1888 said:
As I read the Second Amendment, I read it as enumerating the right of the people, both individually and collectively, to have and bear arms to protect themselves from all threats, both domestic and foreign.
I don't think that's the case, either from the text of the amendment or from what I've read of the debate. I think that it was assumed that everyone had a right to self-defense, but the second amendment really was all about a "well-regulated militia", which meant a well-trained group of private citizens that have stepped up to defend their nation. In order to have this well-regulated militia, the citizens must have military arms and the ability to practice with them. US v. Miller supports this viewpoint, arguing that the standard which should be used to determine whether or not a weapon can be outlawed without violating the second amendment is whether or not it is a useful military weapon.

I'm sure the founders would have agreed that the right of self-defense is another good reason to have arms, but it's not what they were focused on when they passed the amendment. It's clear that they understood the distinction, too, because several of the original thirteen state constitutions explicitly call out the right of the people to defend themselves. The 1776 constitution of Pennsylvania, for example, said: "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

I think second amendment advocates often don't like to think that it was all about national defense, because they fear that could be twisted to imply that since we now have standing armies there's no longer any need for citizens to have guns. That argument of the antis doesn't hold up, though, because it's quite clear that the founders weren't promoting militias solely to prevent foreign invasion, but also saw them as an important check against domestic tyranny.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,129 Posts
I'll be getting my Notary commission shortly, and will be swearing that "I will support, obey and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State", which begs the question as to 1) what it actually means to "defend", and 2) what means or methods might be required to do so.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,528 Posts
I have worked in security fields for over two decades in areas from combat, to commercial, and even federal. What I have observed, on many occasions, is that the best security is an open display of force and vigilance. As an example, some of the highest crime sites are convenience stores, however, some of the lowest crime sites are convenience stores with armed security.

On another note, the 2A says I have a right to bear arms, but can anyone show me any reference that says someone has the right to not see a gun?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,323 Posts
swillden said:
Tarzan1888 said:
As I read the Second Amendment, I read it as enumerating the right of the people, both individually and collectively, to have and bear arms to protect themselves from all threats, both domestic and foreign.
I don't think that's the case......
Sorry Swillden, you are wrong here as you were on PDO....

"tarzan1888 wrote:
Doug Huffman wrote:

lockman wrote:
Does a comma used as a separator or pause also remove any conditions attatched to the first item in the list?

Rule 12d(1), Harbrace College Handbook page 134. "Nonrestrictive clauses or phrases and nonrestrictive appositives are set off by commas. Restrictive elements are not set off."

Thank you Doug.

This means that, "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." Is not restrictive in referring to the milita and the Utah code is un-constitutional as it is restrictive as to indivigual rights to have and bear arms.

Tarzan"

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_topic ... 98#p180498

Your argument is like saying that the following; "A well educated Electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed." means that the only use for books is to educate the Electorate. While it is imparitive that the Electorate be well educated, it is not the only purpose for books and no one who understands the value of education would say so.

The only difference between the Second Amendment and the statement above is the substitution of "educated Electorate" for "regulated Militia" and "read Books" for "bear Arms". All other things are the same and the change in words only changes the types of action words not the implications of the actions.

We all should have the right to be educated through the use of books and we all should have the right to defend ourselves through the use of arms, from ANY and all threats.

QED

Tarzan
 
G

·
Tarzan1888 said:
swillden said:
Tarzan1888 said:
As I read the Second Amendment, I read it as enumerating the right of the people, both individually and collectively, to have and bear arms to protect themselves from all threats, both domestic and foreign.
I don't think that's the case......
Sorry Swillden, you are wrong here as you were on PDO....

"tarzan1888 wrote:
Doug Huffman wrote:

lockman wrote:
Does a comma used as a separator or pause also remove any conditions attatched to the first item in the list?

Rule 12d(1), Harbrace College Handbook page 134. "Nonrestrictive clauses or phrases and nonrestrictive appositives are set off by commas. Restrictive elements are not set off."

Thank you Doug.

This means that, "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." Is not restrictive in referring to the milita and the Utah code is un-constitutional as it is restrictive as to indivigual rights to have and bear arms.

Tarzan"

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_topic ... 98#p180498

Your argument is like saying that the following; "A well educated Electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed." means that the only use for books is to educate the Electorate. While it is imparitive that the Electorate be well educated, it is not the only purpose for books and no one who understands the value of education would say so.

The only difference between the Second Amendment and the statement above is the substitution of "educated Electorate" for "regulated Militia" and "read Books" for "bear Arms". All other things are the same and the change in words only changes the types of action words not the implications of the actions.

We all should have the right to be educated through the use of books and we all should have the right to defend ourselves through the use of arms, from ANY and all threats.

QED

Tarzan
Well stated although I disagree a bit. Behold a bit o' cut and paste:

It doesn't mater whether we are or are not members of the militia, army, cheesecake foundry, or frogman patrol.

It states clearly the right of the people to keep and bear arms......It says nothing about the militias right to do so. It says nothing about us being in a militia. A militia has nothing to do with the second amendment at all. The preamble, if that is an acceptable term, that addresses the militia is there to demonstrate why it is critical that the people be armed.

Let me see if I can demonstrate this.

It had already been conceded that the state could raise an army in the constitution (the finer points of this were heavily argued, many believed we should be able to raise an army in time of need but that a standing army is dangerous to the liberty of the people).

Thus some smart blokes realized that a standing army could be used against the people and the people needed to be able to resist.

Therefore we have "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."

Translation for the slow:

If the state needs an army to ensure the security of the state the people must be armed as a means to oppose the army should it be used against the people by a tyrannical government.

That is it, nothing more nothing less. Any other interpretation is a lie and only furthers the aims of lairs.

Liberalizing the interpretation of the second amendment for any purpose does not help us.

Widespread misinterpretation of the meaning of such a simple sentence is derived from one place. Lawyers with and agenda and the sloth of the common man. All to often people rely on others to do their thinking for them. We all do it; there is no shame in economizing your time by trusting the word of an authority in matters we are not expert. Where someone should be critical is in evaluating the authority we are choosing to trust. If the authority doesn't pass the sniff test then one should investigate for themselves.

Anyone with a wit of sense would conclude that the place to turn for answers to this question would be the exhaustive and often much more verbose writing by the men who authored the bill of rights. Rather than turn to the rather suspect and subjective opinions of these dubious so-called scholars of grammar.

BUT we are talking about lawyers here. They can be counted on to lie, obfuscate, and confuse anything that they believe furthers their aim. Of course they know an argument based on commas is absurd; but it is one of the only avenues they can exploit so of course they will. It is what the immoral do; it is their job and from the perspective of a lawyer they have an obligation to do so.

I wish I had a job that would allow me to throw out my morality and replace it with something much easier.
 
G

·
swillden said:
GSP said:
The general public's rights supercede the individual's rights.
Be careful there. While it's true that in some cases it makes sense for societal interests to take precedence over individual rights, go too far that way and you end up with no individual rights. Any curtailment of individual rights for the good of the public has to be carefully weighed and clearly justified.

GSP said:
Especially when it comes to public safety!
And be VERY careful there. "Safety is a tyrant's tool; no one can be against safety." I agree that real solutions to real safety problems can justify curtailing individual rights. The traditional example is shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre -- the individual's need to be able to do that is weak and the negative consequences of allowing it are severe. But lots of times "safety" is used to justify curtailment of rights when the risk is not real or when the solution doesn't actually address the problem.

In this case, the risk to public safety is not real. Perhaps if OC becomes very common, then criminals and crazies will OC in order to "blend in". At present, that's not the case. They hide their guns, so upon seeing a safely-holstered weapon openly carried by a peaceful-looking person the reasonable expectation is that the carrier is either a law-abiding citizen or a police officer.
Well stated but statements like this draw such ire in me I too had to respond.
The entire purpose of our Constitution and therefore our government is to protect the rights of the individual. Collective rights are a sham propagated by thieves and is often manifest in the concept of disjoined responsibility which is logically fallacious. Furthermore logical inspection of the concept reviles that the general publics rights and individual rights are the same thing. If you protect the rights of the collective and not the individual who are you really protecting; I will tell you who: tyrants.

"Your right to swing your fist stops where my nose begins"; I am certain you have heard it before. I prefer the phrase "I don't care what you do so long as you don't do it to me". You are, or should be, free to do anything that does not directly infringe upon my right to do anything I want, and so on all the way up to the 300 million of us doing what we want. That little concept there is more than ample to protect the rights and safety of the general public.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,323 Posts
Eukatae said:
Well stated although I disagree a bit. Behold a bit o' cut and paste:

It doesn't mater whether we are or are not members of the militia, army, cheesecake foundry, or frogman patrol.

It states clearly the right of the people to keep and bear arms......It says nothing about the militias right to do so. It says nothing about us being in a militia. A militia has nothing to do with the second amendment at all. The preamble, if that is an acceptable term, that addresses the militia is there to demonstrate why it is critical that the people be armed.

Let me see if I can demonstrate this.

It had already been conceded that the state could raise an army in the constitution (the finer points of this were heavily argued, many believed we should be able to raise an army in time of need but that a standing army is dangerous to the liberty of the people).

Thus some smart blokes realized that a standing army could be used against the people and the people needed to be able to resist.

Therefore we have "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."

Translation for the slow:

If the state needs an army to ensure the security of the state the people must be armed as a means to oppose the army should it be used against the people by a tyrannical government.

That is it, nothing more nothing less. Any other interpretation is a lie and only furthers the aims of lairs.

Liberalizing the interpretation of the second amendment for any purpose does not help us.

Widespread misinterpretation of the meaning of such a simple sentence is derived from one place. Lawyers with and agenda and the sloth of the common man. All to often people rely on others to do their thinking for them. We all do it; there is no shame in economizing your time by trusting the word of an authority in matters we are not expert. Where someone should be critical is in evaluating the authority we are choosing to trust. If the authority doesn't pass the sniff test then one should investigate for themselves.

Anyone with a wit of sense would conclude that the place to turn for answers to this question would be the exhaustive and often much more verbose writing by the men who authored the bill of rights. Rather than turn to the rather suspect and subjective opinions of these dubious so-called scholars of grammar.

BUT we are talking about lawyers here. They can be counted on to lie, obfuscate, and confuse anything that they believe furthers their aim. Of course they know an argument based on commas is absurd; but it is one of the only avenues they can exploit so of course they will. It is what the immoral do; it is their job and from the perspective of a lawyer they have an obligation to do so.

I wish I had a job that would allow me to throw out my morality and replace it with something much easier.
There is even a higher law.....Behold;

D&C 134: 11

11 We believe that men should appeal to the civil law for redress of all wrongs and grievances, where personal abuse is inflicted or the right of property or character infringed, where such laws exist as will protect the same; but we believe that all men are justified in defending themselves, their friends, and property, and the government, from the unlawful assaults and encroachments of all persons in times of exigency, where immediate appeal cannot be made to the laws, and relief afforded.

Note the highlighted portion.

Tarzan
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,757 Posts
Tarzan1888 said:
Your argument is like saying that the following; "A well educated Electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed." means that the only use for books is to educate the Electorate.
Not at all.

That doesn't mean the only purpose of books is to educate the electorate, it means that the motivation for stating the need for books is to educate the electorate. It describes ONE reason for needing books, but that in no way denies the existence of others.

The Founders fully understood the other purposes of arms, as evidenced by the language the SAME people used when they wrote many of the contemporary state constitutions, and as evidenced by the text of their extensive debates on the subject. But when they wrote the second amendment, and when Madison introduced it to Congress, it was focused on the militia. That was the purpose for the amendment, though they recognized that other important uses existed.

Given the existence of one overwhelming justification, no others need to be mentioned, even if everyone knows they exist.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,167 Posts
swillden said:
That was the purpose for the amendment, though they recognized that other important uses existed.

Given the existence of one overwhelming justification, no others need to be mentioned, even if everyone knows they exist.
Problem is that now people are so ignorant or stupid that they refuse to see the various other uses for firearms besides just for law enforcement and military use. Scary...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,323 Posts
swillden said:
Tarzan1888 said:
Your argument is like saying that the following; "A well educated Electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed." means that the only use for books is to educate the Electorate.
.....That doesn't mean the only purpose of books is to educate the electorate, it means that the motivation for stating the need for books is to educate the electorate. It describes ONE reason for needing books, but that in no way denies the existence of others.......
Agreed

Tarzan
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,600 Posts
swillden said:
GSP said:
The general public's rights supercede the individual's rights.
Be careful there. While it's true that in some cases it makes sense for societal interests to take precedence over individual rights, go too far that way and you end up with no individual rights. Any curtailment of individual rights for the good of the public has to be carefully weighed and clearly justified.
Very true. In my Poli. Sci. class right now we are learning about Fascism. One of Mussolini's famous quotes he used to indoctrinate the Italian people was to constantly remind them: "All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state" -- a more modern rendering of which might read, "All for the public, nothing not for the public, nothing against the public" -- in other words what he was saying is that the common good is all-important.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
356 Posts
Tarzan1888 said:
Eukatae said:
Well stated although I disagree a bit. Behold a bit o' cut and paste:

It doesn't mater whether we are or are not members of the militia, army, cheesecake foundry, or frogman patrol.

It states clearly the right of the people to keep and bear arms......It says nothing about the militias right to do so. It says nothing about us being in a militia. A militia has nothing to do with the second amendment at all. The preamble, if that is an acceptable term, that addresses the militia is there to demonstrate why it is critical that the people be armed.

Let me see if I can demonstrate this.

It had already been conceded that the state could raise an army in the constitution (the finer points of this were heavily argued, many believed we should be able to raise an army in time of need but that a standing army is dangerous to the liberty of the people).

Thus some smart blokes realized that a standing army could be used against the people and the people needed to be able to resist.

Therefore we have "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."

Translation for the slow:

If the state needs an army to ensure the security of the state the people must be armed as a means to oppose the army should it be used against the people by a tyrannical government.

That is it, nothing more nothing less. Any other interpretation is a lie and only furthers the aims of lairs.

Liberalizing the interpretation of the second amendment for any purpose does not help us.

Widespread misinterpretation of the meaning of such a simple sentence is derived from one place. Lawyers with and agenda and the sloth of the common man. All to often people rely on others to do their thinking for them. We all do it; there is no shame in economizing your time by trusting the word of an authority in matters we are not expert. Where someone should be critical is in evaluating the authority we are choosing to trust. If the authority doesn't pass the sniff test then one should investigate for themselves.

Anyone with a wit of sense would conclude that the place to turn for answers to this question would be the exhaustive and often much more verbose writing by the men who authored the bill of rights. Rather than turn to the rather suspect and subjective opinions of these dubious so-called scholars of grammar.

BUT we are talking about lawyers here. They can be counted on to lie, obfuscate, and confuse anything that they believe furthers their aim. Of course they know an argument based on commas is absurd; but it is one of the only avenues they can exploit so of course they will. It is what the immoral do; it is their job and from the perspective of a lawyer they have an obligation to do so.

I wish I had a job that would allow me to throw out my morality and replace it with something much easier.
There is even a higher law.....Behold;

D&C 134: 11

11 We believe that men should appeal to the civil law for redress of all wrongs and grievances, where personal abuse is inflicted or the right of property or character infringed, where such laws exist as will protect the same; but we believe that all men are justified in defending themselves, their friends, and property, and the government, from the unlawful assaults and encroachments of all persons in times of exigency, where immediate appeal cannot be made to the laws, and relief afforded.

Note the highlighted portion.

Tarzan
11 We believe that men should appeal to the civil law for redress of all wrongs and grievances, where personal abuse is inflicted or the right of property or character infringed, where such laws exist as will protect the same; but we believe that all men are justified in defending themselves, their friends, and property, and the government, from the unlawful assaults and encroachments of all persons in times of exigency, where immediate appeal cannot be made to the laws, and relief afforded.

Hey Tarzan,

This might get me back to Church again...
..."all men are justified in defending themselves, their friends", tells me that I should be justified to carry and we should be able to get the Church to get their "Ban" away.

Otherwise they would have to "re-right" their scripture and we won't go there.

So from now and on...Carry and Worship :crown:

They say that they believe it according to THEIR...DOCTRINE.

TJ
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
295 Posts
Francis Marion said:
On another note, the 2A says I have a right to bear arms, but can anyone show me any reference that says someone has the right to not see a gun?
This is a problem that is not limited to firearms, unfortunately, but the application here is particularly poignant, especially knowing how people can both love and hate guns, and their irrational reasons for doing either.

There is a certain level of discomfort that must be prevented: for example, the discomfort of being shot or the discomfort of seeing someone brandish a weapon without cause. Other discomforts need not be legislatively attacked, such as the discomfort at the sight of a gun. I'll admit, seeing someone I do not know open carry doesn't fill me with the most amazing feelings of joy and happiness because I do not know that person, and therefore cannot trust them, but as long as the firearm remains holstered, I realize that it is my problem that I feel a little discomfort, and I can do something to chill out :D

Some people have come to believe that they have a right to live in complete comfort without ever being offended. Comfort breeds laziness. The path of least resistance makes rivers and men crooked. What those people need to learn is that offense can only be taken, and if you're uncomfortable with someone who is exercising a legal right, you probably need a little education and exposure (like me!).

I have been fascinated by the blatantly ignorant actions of WVCPD and I am very interested to see how this all pans out...

--Geoff
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,323 Posts
UTOC-45-44 said:
Tarzan1888 said:
Eukatae said:
Well stated although I disagree a bit. Behold a bit o' cut and paste:

It doesn't mater whether we are or are not members of the militia, army, cheesecake foundry, or frogman patrol.

It states clearly the right of the people to keep and bear arms......It says nothing about the militias right to do so. It says nothing about us being in a militia. A militia has nothing to do with the second amendment at all. The preamble, if that is an acceptable term, that addresses the militia is there to demonstrate why it is critical that the people be armed.

Let me see if I can demonstrate this.

It had already been conceded that the state could raise an army in the constitution (the finer points of this were heavily argued, many believed we should be able to raise an army in time of need but that a standing army is dangerous to the liberty of the people).

Thus some smart blokes realized that a standing army could be used against the people and the people needed to be able to resist.

Therefore we have "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."

Translation for the slow:

If the state needs an army to ensure the security of the state the people must be armed as a means to oppose the army should it be used against the people by a tyrannical government.

That is it, nothing more nothing less. Any other interpretation is a lie and only furthers the aims of lairs.

Liberalizing the interpretation of the second amendment for any purpose does not help us.

Widespread misinterpretation of the meaning of such a simple sentence is derived from one place. Lawyers with and agenda and the sloth of the common man. All to often people rely on others to do their thinking for them. We all do it; there is no shame in economizing your time by trusting the word of an authority in matters we are not expert. Where someone should be critical is in evaluating the authority we are choosing to trust. If the authority doesn't pass the sniff test then one should investigate for themselves.

Anyone with a wit of sense would conclude that the place to turn for answers to this question would be the exhaustive and often much more verbose writing by the men who authored the bill of rights. Rather than turn to the rather suspect and subjective opinions of these dubious so-called scholars of grammar.

BUT we are talking about lawyers here. They can be counted on to lie, obfuscate, and confuse anything that they believe furthers their aim. Of course they know an argument based on commas is absurd; but it is one of the only avenues they can exploit so of course they will. It is what the immoral do; it is their job and from the perspective of a lawyer they have an obligation to do so.

I wish I had a job that would allow me to throw out my morality and replace it with something much easier.
There is even a higher law.....Behold;

D&C 134: 11

11 We believe that men should appeal to the civil law for redress of all wrongs and grievances, where personal abuse is inflicted or the right of property or character infringed, where such laws exist as will protect the same; but we believe that all men are justified in defending themselves, their friends, and property, and the government, from the unlawful assaults and encroachments of all persons in times of exigency, where immediate appeal cannot be made to the laws, and relief afforded.

Note the highlighted portion.

Tarzan
11 We believe that men should appeal to the civil law for redress of all wrongs and grievances, where personal abuse is inflicted or the right of property or character infringed, where such laws exist as will protect the same; but we believe that all men are justified in defending themselves, their friends, and property, and the government, from the unlawful assaults and encroachments of all persons in times of exigency, where immediate appeal cannot be made to the laws, and relief afforded.

Hey Tarzan,

This might get me back to Church again...
..."all men are justified in defending themselves, their friends", tells me that I should be justified to carry and we should be able to get the Church to get their "Ban" away.

Otherwise they would have to "re-right" their scripture and we won't go there.

So from now and on...Carry and Worship :crown:

They say that they believe it according to THEIR...DOCTRINE.

TJ
TJ

Just be Smart when you Carry

Tarzan
 
41 - 58 of 58 Posts
Top