[Rama Set]

Given the fact the Founding Fathers were deists, it would not be an ideological leap to ascribe the Bill of Rights as being god-given.

I suppose if you believe isn’t a work of fiction then sure.

They are most certainly based on a natural order of things, being all things are born with the ability to communicate and defend.

It is unnatural to believe it would somehow need updating.

If you look at the second amendment, a lot of the controversy surrounds interpretation of its wording. It would be nice to eliminate that controversy. Unambiguously spell out what is meant. If the Founding Fathers meant for everyone to be able to arm themselves and not just an organized militia, then change it to eliminate that confusion. That’s the sort of updating I mean.

[Action80]

"The first ten are based on the natural order of things."

In short, what is this "natural order of things" to which you refer?

The natural order of persons being born with the ability to communicate, defend, and the need for security to allow for natural growth and progression.

Inherent to all things.

Among other things, slavery was still permitted after the first ten amandments were introduced. Black people couldnt vote, or be counted as citizens. Women couldnt vote. That's your "natural order of things"?

Bill of rights didnt quite cut it.

The Bill of Rights did cut it as none of them had language that was written with "color" as a prerequisite for possession. It was things written in addition.

But go ahead, cite some writing from the first 10 amendments to the US Constitution that make reference to things having to do with color.

I will save you the time.

You can't.

The reason you can't is because they do not.

It is people like you who think they know what they mean that allow for injustices.

Faulty interpretation of simple words like "people." When idiots think they can restrict the meaning of the word "people," to include only those of a certain color or gender, then you end up with all sorts of lunacy.

But that is not the fault of the first ten amendments. That fault lays on the door steps of persons like you.

[Action80]

Given the fact the Founding Fathers were deists, it would not be an ideological leap to ascribe the Bill of Rights as being god-given.

I suppose if you believe isn’t a work of fiction then sure.

They are most certainly based on a natural order of things, being all things are born with the ability to communicate and defend.

It is unnatural to believe it would somehow need updating.

If you look at the second amendment, a lot of the controversy surrounds interpretation of its wording. It would be nice to eliminate that controversy. Unambiguously spell out what is meant. If the Founding Fathers meant for everyone to be able to arm themselves and not just an organized militia, then change it to eliminate that confusion. That’s the sort of updating I mean.

It is unambiguous for people who understand the English language and sentence construction.

It speaks of two separate things as there are two independent clauses, separated by a colon.

Not very hard at all.

[Lord Dave]

....

Please show the colon in the 2nd amendment.

[WTF_Seriously]

....

Please show the colon in the 2nd amendment.

A sentence diagram showing the two independent clauses would be nice as well.

[Action80]

....

Please show the colon in the 2nd amendment.

Yeah, I meant comma.

Two independent clauses regardless.

[Roundy]

Grammatically the 2nd Amendment is a mess. For a bunch of learned scholars there seems to be a lot confusion over how to use a comma or put clauses together to create a coherent sentence.

Just the same that clause "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" seems pretty cut and dry. What it doesn't do is address anything regarding how such a right would be regulated. Conservatives seem to argue that this gives a blank check as far as what kind of weapons one may bear, but this is ludicrous on the surface; obviously you can't keep nuclear weapons, dirty bombs, working tanks, etc.

So yeah, based on the wording of the 2nd Amendment, the people definitely have a right to bear arms, and the government has the right to regulate that right, as with every other right in the Bill of Rights. For example, free speech - it's completely protected, except in some situations, not being allowed to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater being the classic example.

Such restrictions are in place to protect the populace, as are regulations on weapon ownership. Obviously by the letter of the Constitution such regulations are not unconstitutional. What's more, such regulations have broad bipartisan appeal. That's why any time regulations are introduced, or people even start talking about regulation, the NRA has to amplify it to "They're gonna take our guns away!" so gullible Republicans will oppose it.

[WTF_Seriously]

Grammatically the 2nd Amendment is a mess. For a bunch of learned scholars there seems to be a lot confusion over how to use a comma or put clauses together to create a coherent sentence.

Relative to the time it was written, it makes perfect sense.  The fact that it doesn't in any way relate to modern day couldn't be predicted by the folks drafting.

[Action80]

Grammatically the 2nd Amendment is a mess. For a bunch of learned scholars there seems to be a lot confusion over how to use a comma or put clauses together to create a coherent sentence.

Just the same that clause "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" seems pretty cut and dry. What it doesn't do is address anything regarding how such a right would be regulated. Conservatives seem to argue that this gives a blank check as far as what kind of weapons one may bear, but this is ludicrous on the surface; obviously you can't keep nuclear weapons, dirty bombs, working tanks, etc.

So yeah, based on the wording of the 2nd Amendment, the people definitely have a right to bear arms, and the government has the right to regulate that right, as with every other right in the Bill of Rights. For example, free speech - it's completely protected, except in some situations, not being allowed to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater being the classic example.

Such restrictions are in place to protect the populace, as are regulations on weapon ownership. Obviously by the letter of the Constitution such regulations are not unconstitutional. What's more, such regulations have broad bipartisan appeal. That's why any time regulations are introduced, or people even start talking about regulation, the NRA has to amplify it to "They're gonna take our guns away!" so gullible Republicans will oppose it.

It is not gullible Republicans or even gullible Democrats that are at issue.

The Bill of Rights do not grant rights.

The Bill of Rights delineates rights that are natural and have to do with natural things such as communication and security, those things being necessary for a healthy populace.

There can be no natural regulation of these things other than the free exercise of them, without regulation.

[Action80]

Grammatically the 2nd Amendment is a mess. For a bunch of learned scholars there seems to be a lot confusion over how to use a comma or put clauses together to create a coherent sentence.

Relative to the time it was written, it makes perfect sense.  The fact that it doesn't in any way relate to modern day couldn't be predicted by the folks drafting.

Claiming the folks who drafted the bill of rights couldn't predict change in the world is just plain ludicrous.

[Iceman]

Claiming the folks who drafted the bill of rights couldn't predict change in the world is just plain ludicrous.

So now they ARE just 'folks who drafted' it, it's not the perfect word of god.

But you're now arguing that those folks could predict the future. Outstanding!

[Roundy]

Grammatically the 2nd Amendment is a mess. For a bunch of learned scholars there seems to be a lot confusion over how to use a comma or put clauses together to create a coherent sentence.

Just the same that clause "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" seems pretty cut and dry. What it doesn't do is address anything regarding how such a right would be regulated. Conservatives seem to argue that this gives a blank check as far as what kind of weapons one may bear, but this is ludicrous on the surface; obviously you can't keep nuclear weapons, dirty bombs, working tanks, etc.

So yeah, based on the wording of the 2nd Amendment, the people definitely have a right to bear arms, and the government has the right to regulate that right, as with every other right in the Bill of Rights. For example, free speech - it's completely protected, except in some situations, not being allowed to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater being the classic example.

Such restrictions are in place to protect the populace, as are regulations on weapon ownership. Obviously by the letter of the Constitution such regulations are not unconstitutional. What's more, such regulations have broad bipartisan appeal. That's why any time regulations are introduced, or people even start talking about regulation, the NRA has to amplify it to "They're gonna take our guns away!" so gullible Republicans will oppose it.

It is not gullible Republicans or even gullible Democrats that are at issue.

The Bill of Rights do not grant rights.

The Bill of Rights delineates rights that are natural and have to do with natural things such as communication and security, those things being necessary for a healthy populace.

There can be no natural regulation of these things other than the free exercise of them, without regulation.

So you think people should be allowed to cause a panic by yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater? That such a right would be "necessary for a healthy populace"? That's... a controversial opinion, to say the least. I guess all I have to say is that I'm glad the Founders disagreed.

[Action80]

Claiming the folks who drafted the bill of rights couldn't predict change in the world is just plain ludicrous.

So now they ARE just 'folks who drafted' it, it's not the perfect word of god.

But you're now arguing that those folks could predict the future. Outstanding!

Having just changed the world, I am sure they had a firm grip on the concept of change.

Nothing to do with predicting the future.

Just an understanding that change happens.

[Action80]

Grammatically the 2nd Amendment is a mess. For a bunch of learned scholars there seems to be a lot confusion over how to use a comma or put clauses together to create a coherent sentence.

Just the same that clause "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" seems pretty cut and dry. What it doesn't do is address anything regarding how such a right would be regulated. Conservatives seem to argue that this gives a blank check as far as what kind of weapons one may bear, but this is ludicrous on the surface; obviously you can't keep nuclear weapons, dirty bombs, working tanks, etc.

So yeah, based on the wording of the 2nd Amendment, the people definitely have a right to bear arms, and the government has the right to regulate that right, as with every other right in the Bill of Rights. For example, free speech - it's completely protected, except in some situations, not being allowed to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater being the classic example.

Such restrictions are in place to protect the populace, as are regulations on weapon ownership. Obviously by the letter of the Constitution such regulations are not unconstitutional. What's more, such regulations have broad bipartisan appeal. That's why any time regulations are introduced, or people even start talking about regulation, the NRA has to amplify it to "They're gonna take our guns away!" so gullible Republicans will oppose it.

It is not gullible Republicans or even gullible Democrats that are at issue.

The Bill of Rights do not grant rights.

The Bill of Rights delineates rights that are natural and have to do with natural things such as communication and security, those things being necessary for a healthy populace.

There can be no natural regulation of these things other than the free exercise of them, without regulation.

So you think people should be allowed to cause a panic by yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater? That such a right would be "necessary for a healthy populace"? That's... a controversial opinion, to say the least. I guess all I have to say is that I'm glad the Founders disagreed.

Holy cow.

Exercise of free speech inherently includes the consideration of the rights of others.

Quit strawmanning and making shit up.

[Roundy]

Grammatically the 2nd Amendment is a mess. For a bunch of learned scholars there seems to be a lot confusion over how to use a comma or put clauses together to create a coherent sentence.

Just the same that clause "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" seems pretty cut and dry. What it doesn't do is address anything regarding how such a right would be regulated. Conservatives seem to argue that this gives a blank check as far as what kind of weapons one may bear, but this is ludicrous on the surface; obviously you can't keep nuclear weapons, dirty bombs, working tanks, etc.

So yeah, based on the wording of the 2nd Amendment, the people definitely have a right to bear arms, and the government has the right to regulate that right, as with every other right in the Bill of Rights. For example, free speech - it's completely protected, except in some situations, not being allowed to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater being the classic example.

Such restrictions are in place to protect the populace, as are regulations on weapon ownership. Obviously by the letter of the Constitution such regulations are not unconstitutional. What's more, such regulations have broad bipartisan appeal. That's why any time regulations are introduced, or people even start talking about regulation, the NRA has to amplify it to "They're gonna take our guns away!" so gullible Republicans will oppose it.

It is not gullible Republicans or even gullible Democrats that are at issue.

The Bill of Rights do not grant rights.

The Bill of Rights delineates rights that are natural and have to do with natural things such as communication and security, those things being necessary for a healthy populace.

There can be no natural regulation of these things other than the free exercise of them, without regulation.

So you think people should be allowed to cause a panic by yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater? That such a right would be "necessary for a healthy populace"? That's... a controversial opinion, to say the least. I guess all I have to say is that I'm glad the Founders disagreed.

Holy cow.

Exercise of free speech inherently includes the consideration of the rights of others.

Quit strawmanning and making shit up.

So then there are limitations on free speech after all. I'm sorry if you felt like I was strawmanning by restating what you said, but clearly some clarification was needed as this is literally the opposite of what you were arguing just a couple posts ago.

[Action80]

Grammatically the 2nd Amendment is a mess. For a bunch of learned scholars there seems to be a lot confusion over how to use a comma or put clauses together to create a coherent sentence.

Just the same that clause "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" seems pretty cut and dry. What it doesn't do is address anything regarding how such a right would be regulated. Conservatives seem to argue that this gives a blank check as far as what kind of weapons one may bear, but this is ludicrous on the surface; obviously you can't keep nuclear weapons, dirty bombs, working tanks, etc.

So yeah, based on the wording of the 2nd Amendment, the people definitely have a right to bear arms, and the government has the right to regulate that right, as with every other right in the Bill of Rights. For example, free speech - it's completely protected, except in some situations, not being allowed to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater being the classic example.

Such restrictions are in place to protect the populace, as are regulations on weapon ownership. Obviously by the letter of the Constitution such regulations are not unconstitutional. What's more, such regulations have broad bipartisan appeal. That's why any time regulations are introduced, or people even start talking about regulation, the NRA has to amplify it to "They're gonna take our guns away!" so gullible Republicans will oppose it.

It is not gullible Republicans or even gullible Democrats that are at issue.

The Bill of Rights do not grant rights.

The Bill of Rights delineates rights that are natural and have to do with natural things such as communication and security, those things being necessary for a healthy populace.

There can be no natural regulation of these things other than the free exercise of them, without regulation.

So you think people should be allowed to cause a panic by yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater? That such a right would be "necessary for a healthy populace"? That's... a controversial opinion, to say the least. I guess all I have to say is that I'm glad the Founders disagreed.

Holy cow.

Exercise of free speech inherently includes the consideration of the rights of others.

Quit strawmanning and making shit up.

So then there are limitations on free speech after all. I'm sorry if you felt like I was strawmanning by restating what you said, but clearly some clarification was needed as this is literally the opposite of what you were arguing just a couple posts ago.

No, it isn't.

I asked you politely to quit making this stuff up.

Now, I am just going to report it.

I know you realize the exercise of free speech and all other rights is predicated on the realization that others have those same rights.

Someone stepping in to regulate or otherwise infringe on those rights is just plain wrong. It is incumbent on the individual to exercise them within nature.

It isn't natural to yell fire when a fire doesn't exist.

[Roundy]

Grammatically the 2nd Amendment is a mess. For a bunch of learned scholars there seems to be a lot confusion over how to use a comma or put clauses together to create a coherent sentence.

Just the same that clause "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" seems pretty cut and dry. What it doesn't do is address anything regarding how such a right would be regulated. Conservatives seem to argue that this gives a blank check as far as what kind of weapons one may bear, but this is ludicrous on the surface; obviously you can't keep nuclear weapons, dirty bombs, working tanks, etc.

So yeah, based on the wording of the 2nd Amendment, the people definitely have a right to bear arms, and the government has the right to regulate that right, as with every other right in the Bill of Rights. For example, free speech - it's completely protected, except in some situations, not being allowed to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater being the classic example.

Such restrictions are in place to protect the populace, as are regulations on weapon ownership. Obviously by the letter of the Constitution such regulations are not unconstitutional. What's more, such regulations have broad bipartisan appeal. That's why any time regulations are introduced, or people even start talking about regulation, the NRA has to amplify it to "They're gonna take our guns away!" so gullible Republicans will oppose it.

It is not gullible Republicans or even gullible Democrats that are at issue.

The Bill of Rights do not grant rights.

The Bill of Rights delineates rights that are natural and have to do with natural things such as communication and security, those things being necessary for a healthy populace.

There can be no natural regulation of these things other than the free exercise of them, without regulation.

So you think people should be allowed to cause a panic by yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater? That such a right would be "necessary for a healthy populace"? That's... a controversial opinion, to say the least. I guess all I have to say is that I'm glad the Founders disagreed.

Holy cow.

Exercise of free speech inherently includes the consideration of the rights of others.

Quit strawmanning and making shit up.

So then there are limitations on free speech after all. I'm sorry if you felt like I was strawmanning by restating what you said, but clearly some clarification was needed as this is literally the opposite of what you were arguing just a couple posts ago.

No, it isn't.

I asked you politely to quit making this stuff up.

Now, I am just going to report it.

I know you realize the exercise of free speech and all other rights is predicated on the realization that others have those same rights.

How does this relate to yelling "Fire!" in a public theater? In what way does doing so infringe on the free speech of others?

Someone stepping in to regulate or otherwise infringe on those rights is just plain wrong. It is incumbent on the individual to exercise them within nature.

It isn't natural to yell fire when a fire doesn't exist.

In what way is it natural to own a weapon designed for the mass murder of other human beings? If you feel this is strawmanning feel free to point out how. I'm just trying to understand your train of thought here.

[Action80]

How does this relate to yelling "Fire!" in a public theater? In what way does doing so infringe on the free speech of others?

Yelling fire in a theatre does not infringe on the free speech of others.

I never claimed it did.

I did claim that it infringed on the security of others, another natural right.

Someone stepping in to regulate or otherwise infringe on those rights is just plain wrong. It is incumbent on the individual to exercise them within nature.

It isn't natural to yell fire when a fire doesn't exist.

In what way is it natural to own a weapon designed for the mass murder of other human beings? If you feel this is strawmanning feel free to point out how. I'm just trying to understand your train of thought here.

Whether we like it or not, weapons of mass destruction exist. The main owner of these types of weapons is the governments of the world.

That's a fact.

Now, if you trust the governments of the world to protect you and serve your best interests, you can continue to operate within that fantasy world and more power to you.

Me, I know better. Having witnessed seven undeclared wars engaged in by my government and others and knowing they have no trouble utilizing these weapons against their own citizenry when their actions are being peacefully protested, I choose to get as many of them as I can get my hands on, if nothing else to ensure my quick and relatively painless end.

Defense of oneself is a natural act.

In addition, getting my own food is another natural act. Weapons allow for that process to be more efficient and effective.

It is unnatural to kill another human being without justification.

[Roundy]

So lackey, do you feel like your security wouldn't be infringed on if you knew your next-door neighbor was in possession of a live nuclear weapon?

I wouldn't feel like my security was intact, personally. I wouldn't feel very safe at all. Yet this is a weapon of mass destruction controlled by the world's governments.

And now you're strawmanning when you point out that shooting food is a natural act, lol. I never tried to say you shouldn't be allowed to own a shotgun. But try eating something you've shot a hundred rounds through with a repeating assault weapon, lol.

I also never said you shouldn't be allowed to own a weapon for self- defense. I said you shouldn't be allowed to own a weapon whose only conceivable purpose is war or murder. I don't see how it's unnatural to impose such a restriction. Clearly people being allowed to own such weapons violates the security of others; you only have to watch the news from time to time to see that.

[Action80]

So do you feel like your security wouldn't be infringed on if you knew your next-door neighbor was in possession of a live nuclear weapon?
I wouldn't feel like my security was intact, personally. I wouldn't feel very safe at all. Yet this is a weapon of mass destruction controlled by the world's governments.

First, how would I know?

Second, how would that adversely affect my security?

According to experts, the only entity declared to have used nuclear weapons has been the US Government. Considering I do not trust them as much as I trust my current neighbor, I would prefer my neighbor take immediate possession of all remaining known stockpiles.

And now you're strawmanning when you point out that shooting food is a natural act, lol. I never tried to say you shouldn't be allowed to own a shotgun. But try eating something you've shot a hundred rounds through with a repeating assault weapon, lol.

Define assault weapon.

A lot of shotguns are repeating.

You don't know a thing about guns.

That is most of the problem.

I also never said you shouldn't be allowed to own a weapon for self- defense. I said you shouldn't be allowed to own a weapon whose only conceivable purpose is war or murder. I don't see how it's unnatural to impose such a restriction. Clearly people being allowed to own such weapons violates the security of others; you only have to watch the news from time to time to see that.

I was wrong earlier.

You don't know anything and that is all of the problem.

It isn't the ownership of the weapons that is unnatural.

It is their unjustified use.