Kansas Right to Bear Arms Question, C...

Kansas Right to Bear Arms Question, Constitutional Amendment Question 1

Created by CitizenTopix on Oct 7, 2010

3,514 votes

Click on an option to vote

Yes

No

Other (explain below)

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#4155 May 13, 2012
Chilli J wrote:
I'm a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment. So, within the confines of the law, a guy or gal should be able to hunt with a shotgun or rifle and to use a handgun in self-defense. Do you support the right for anyone to own any guy outside the confines of the law? Does your support for gun owners' rights extend to the guy with that Mac 10?
Perhaps I can assist you in answering your own questions -

What in your opinion is the purpose of the Second Amendment?

Here's a little hint:

The reason the founding fathers considered it important to phrase the wording of the Amendment so specifically, had nothing to do with hunting.

Here's another hint:

"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."
Jon

Luton, UK

#4156 May 13, 2012
There should be no questions as to the right to bare arms.
Its in the constitution of the USA!

“So it's not you, It's them?”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#4157 May 14, 2012
Don-N-Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps I can assist you in answering your own questions -
What in your opinion is the purpose of the Second Amendment?
Here's a little hint:
The reason the founding fathers considered it important to phrase the wording of the Amendment so specifically, had nothing to do with hunting.
Here's another hint:
"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."
So you'd choose to answer a question with a question. Can and/or will you answer the questions posed? I'm trying to have an honest discussion. Unfortunately, it appears that you want to play games.

I know what the 2nd Amendment says. Are you a member of a militia? If you can't answer several fairly basic questions posed, we're done here. I don't waste time bantering with non-responsive posters.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#4158 May 14, 2012
Chilli J wrote:
So you'd choose to answer a question with a question. Can and/or will you answer the questions posed? I'm trying to have an honest discussion. Unfortunately, it appears that you want to play games.
I know what the 2nd Amendment says. Are you a member of a militia? If you can't answer several fairly basic questions posed, we're done here. I don't waste time bantering with non-responsive posters.
OK you want it direct and to the point... here it is;

The Second Amendment of the Constitution, which you claim to support, was put there in order to allow the formation of citizens militias in order to protect the country against enemies 'foreign and domestic' as the saying goes. That is why the article mentions "...necessary to the security of a free state,".

This being the case I'm thinking the original intent was not to limit the citizens to pea-shooters and beanie flipper, as that would probably be a poor of weaponry for the defense of a nation or a state... or even a state against the nation if it should come to that.

Personally I don't agree with the majority of private citizenry owning things like artillery grade weapons as a rule but if there is a gun made and sold for private ownership, I believe a citizen should be able to own and use one. There should be no (or very few) regulations on the ownership of such weapons - if anyone should attempt to regulate how those weapons are used, that is something else entirely.

If as you claim you are a "strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment", that would seem to indicate you are also a supporter of the intent of the article which is clearly stated by: "being necessary to the security of a free state,".

So yeah, I suppose I do support the rights of those who would care to purchase and own a "Mac 10", if for no other reason than the purpose stated in the Second Amendment of the Constitution.

I don't think we should attempt to cherry pick which provisions of our Constitution we choose to support and which ones to ignore.

Either the entirety of the Article/provision remains as written, or it should be amended by due process, but never ignored or subverted.

There it is, I hope plain and simple enough.
door king

Corpus Christi, TX

#4159 May 14, 2012
How does having idiots running about with concealed weapons make the state more secure and free?

unauthorized_use r

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#4160 May 14, 2012
door king wrote:
How does having idiots running about with concealed weapons make the state more secure and free?
Makes people less liable to want to rob you if they know they might only get shot. If some one wants a gun they will only get it anyway, Better some one can use one for protection then only have the criminals run around shooting at every one.

“So it's not you, It's them?”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#4161 May 14, 2012
Don-N-Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>
OK you want it direct and to the point... here it is;
The Second Amendment of the Constitution, which you claim to support, was put there in order to allow the formation of citizens militias in order to protect the country against enemies 'foreign and domestic' as the saying goes. That is why the article mentions "...necessary to the security of a free state,".
This being the case I'm thinking the original intent was not to limit the citizens to pea-shooters and beanie flipper, as that would probably be a poor of weaponry for the defense of a nation or a state... or even a state against the nation if it should come to that.
Personally I don't agree with the majority of private citizenry owning things like artillery grade weapons as a rule but if there is a gun made and sold for private ownership, I believe a citizen should be able to own and use one. There should be no (or very few) regulations on the ownership of such weapons - if anyone should attempt to regulate how those weapons are used, that is something else entirely.
If as you claim you are a "strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment", that would seem to indicate you are also a supporter of the intent of the article which is clearly stated by: "being necessary to the security of a free state,".
So yeah, I suppose I do support the rights of those who would care to purchase and own a "Mac 10", if for no other reason than the purpose stated in the Second Amendment of the Constitution.
I don't think we should attempt to cherry pick which provisions of our Constitution we choose to support and which ones to ignore.
Either the entirety of the Article/provision remains as written, or it should be amended by due process, but never ignored or subverted.
There it is, I hope plain and simple enough.
So your answers in your labored, windy post above to my previous questions would be: "Yes" amd "Yes". See that wasn't that tough, was it? So you're one of those guys who would stop just short of selling everyone a 50 cal? I can't say that I'm surprised. I wish I shared your apparently naive faith in our peers to always do the right thing.

You seeming 2nd Amendment absolutists do entertain me. Thanks for your feedback.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#4162 May 14, 2012
door king wrote:
How does having idiots running about with concealed weapons make the state more secure and free?
I suppose this is a little detour in the topic of discussion, which last time I checked was the right to bear arms according to the Constitution and whether Kansas should duplicate it.

Now while legal concealed carry may not largely effect national and state security, I'm willing to bet private ownership certainly does or could should the need ever arise.
Chilli J wrote:
<quoted text>
So your answers in your labored, windy post above to my previous questions would be: "Yes" amd "Yes". See that wasn't that tough, was it? So you're one of those guys who would stop just short of selling everyone a 50 cal? I can't say that I'm surprised. I wish I shared your apparently naive faith in our peers to always do the right thing.
You seeming 2nd Amendment absolutists do entertain me. Thanks for your feedback.
Ah, I see Chilli J… although you profess to believe in the Second Amendment, you do not believe in it as it is written, for what it clearly states – but only how you think it should be interpreted to fit your personal views and notion.

So I might argue that you made a false statement when you claimed to be a “strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment” because if you have to misconstrue or falsely interpret something to fit your personal opinion, that doesn’t qualify as “strongly supporting” in my opinion.

Actually I only have marginal faith in others, but I do have a great deal of faith in the Constitution of the United States and the rule of law.

While it may be legal to own a gun – it is not legal to point that gun at someone or use it in a manner contrary to the law… you do recognize the difference don’t you.

Actually, your apparent view of the Second Amendment, answers quite well about your stated opinion. You are welcome to you views and opinions… personally when it comes to matters of this nature; I prefer to dwell in reality.

“So it's not you, It's them?”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#4163 May 14, 2012
Don-N-Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>
I suppose this is a little detour in the topic of discussion, which last time I checked was the right to bear arms according to the Constitution and whether Kansas should duplicate it.
Now while legal concealed carry may not largely effect national and state security, I'm willing to bet private ownership certainly does or could should the need ever arise.
<quoted text>
Ah, I see Chilli J… although you profess to believe in the Second Amendment, you do not believe in it as it is written, for what it clearly states – but only how you think it should be interpreted to fit your personal views and notion.
So I might argue that you made a false statement when you claimed to be a “strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment” because if you have to misconstrue or falsely interpret something to fit your personal opinion, that doesn’t qualify as “strongly supporting” in my opinion.
Actually I only have marginal faith in others, but I do have a great deal of faith in the Constitution of the United States and the rule of law.
While it may be legal to own a gun – it is not legal to point that gun at someone or use it in a manner contrary to the law… you do recognize the difference don’t you.
Actually, your apparent view of the Second Amendment, answers quite well about your stated opinion (sic). You are welcome to you (sic) views and opinions… personally when it comes to matters of this nature; I prefer to dwell in reality.
Thanks for your semi-literate reply above. You so-called "Strict Constitutionalists" are a hoot. You incorrectly assume what my, as you quaintly put it: "apparent personal view" is and innacurately assume I made a false statement when I spoke of being a strong 2nd Amendment supporter. What do you base your false assumptions on?

All I'd gather from your post above is you seem to lack basic grammar skills and any significant legal background. Thanks for confirming it. As truly amazing as the Founding Fathers were, its beyond doubt that they were not prescient. Your insistence that the Constitution be applied word-for-word today, 200+ years later, is cute, yet naive.

I'd hope you could do better than your post above and I'd be happy to give you a do-over. "Strict" Constitutional absolutism / literalism is the last bastion of defense of guys who can't craft any argument without others' help. Are your one of them? If that's all you've got, say so and we'll leave it at that. Take your time, I'll wait.
fast twitch

Junction City, KS

#4164 May 14, 2012
unauthorized_user wrote:
<quoted text>I notice that no where did you say that the pit was aggressive. But it dose seem the fact it was a pit made you uneasy. I have been bitten by a German Sheppard, A terrier when I was like 3 right in the left eye and he f@#$ed it up, and a few other breads but not once in my life a pit. And I have known quite a few pits and owned one myself. I call that ignorance, not reason to own a gun. Fact you seem like you might be a bit to twitchy to have one.
The fact you`ve been bitten so many times says alot about you, to put it kindly. That`s the difference between being proactive and reactive. Nice doggy....Yaaaaaoooowwwch, he BIT me !!

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#4165 May 14, 2012
Chilli J wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for your semi-literate reply above. You so-called "Strict Constitutionalists" are a hoot. You incorrectly assume what my, as you quaintly put it: "apparent personal view" is and innacurately assume I made a false statement when I spoke of being a strong 2nd Amendment supporter. What do you base your false assumptions on?
All I'd gather from your post above is you seem to lack basic grammar skills and any significant legal background. Thanks for confirming it. As truly amazing as the Founding Fathers were, its beyond doubt that they were not prescient. Your insistence that the Constitution be applied word-for-word today, 200+ years later, is cute, yet naive.
I'd hope you could do better than your post above and I'd be happy to give you a do-over. "Strict" Constitutional absolutism / literalism is the last bastion of defense of guys who can't craft any argument without others' help. Are your one of them? If that's all you've got, say so and we'll leave it at that. Take your time, I'll wait.
So your preference is to ponderously attack how<emphasis> I post while attempting to express, in your opinion, that my views so very wrong, suggesting the wording of the Constitution should not be interpreted... Seem to have no problem espousing you believe your views are absolutely right, for saying it should,<emphasis> be interpreted.

To me the wording of the Second Amendment seems clear and precise in not only the lettering, but the intent… particularly the last four words:“…shall not be infringed.”

I’m guessing that means by subversion, denial or (mis)interpretation.

But as I said you are free to believe and opine as you wish...

Particularly if you don't mind being, in my opinion, wrong. ;-)

“So it's not you, It's them?”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#4166 May 14, 2012
Don-N-Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>
So your preference is to ponderously attack how<emphasis> I post while attempting to express, in your opinion, that my views so very wrong, suggesting the wording of the Constitution should not be interpreted... Seem to have no problem espousing you believe your views are absolutely right, for saying it should,<emphasis> be interpreted.
To me the wording of the Second Amendment seems clear and precise in not only the lettering, but the intent… particularly the last four words:“…shall not be infringed.”
I’m guessing that means by subversion, denial or (mis)interpretation.
But as I said you are free to believe and opine as you wish...
Particularly if you don't mind being, in my opinion, wrong. ;-)
I'll take your post above as your attempt at a do-over. If my most recent response offended you, that's unfortunate. I'm accustomed to challenging others' ideas and arguments, as I've tried to here.

That you'd be as sensitive as you appear to be, to my challenging your ideas and arguments is interesting. "Ponderously attack?" LOL You're very funny. There, there. It's okay Don. We're good, bud.

Your response seems to be "because the Constitution says..." Let's try another approach to this. The Constitution doesn't speak to a number of today's relevant issues and/or couldn't foresee others.

How would you deal with Constitutional voids and/or obsolescence? When the Constitution is silent about relevant issues and/or when language in it is now outdated, what would you suggest that we do?

Call a friend, copy or peek at another guy's answer if it would help. Impress and dazzle me with your intellect, your logical, original thought processes. You can do it. I believe in you.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#4167 May 14, 2012
Chilli J wrote:
<Redacted quote>
I'll take your post above as your attempt at a do-over.

Your response seems to be "because the Constitution says..." Let's try another approach to this. The Constitution doesn't speak to a number of today's relevant issues and/or couldn't foresee others.

How would you deal with Constitutional voids and/or obsolescence?
This is an open forum, you can take my post anyway you want, I didn't feel the need to exercise a "do-over" so didn't attempt one. If you are looking for someone to follow your commands… might I suggest you purchase a dog?

I am by no means offended, I have been posting on open forums for quite some time now and as a consequence, I am not that thin skinned.

Nice attempted dodge… you did ponderously seem to comment on how I posted but seemed to offer very little of substance other than that, perhaps one or two sentences about the Second Amendment. Check back if you care to… I’m guessing other people will.

I consider the Constitution to be a “living document”, however that being said the articles and amendments of the Constitution say what they mean and mean exactly what they say in my opinion unless and until they have been amended – as has been previously done numerous times.

If there are things in the Constitution like for instance slavery, voting rights, etc. that are no longer relevant or needs amending, there are provisions of how to do so by the guidelines that happen to be included in the Constitution by the way, it seems the framers thought of just about everything, didn’t they?

I shouldn’t have to tell you how to address irrelevant, missing provisions of the Constitution; the document itself does that, again in plain and simple language.

Looking at the specific letters and wording of the Constitution and thinking the framers knew or thought their words would mean something else in 200 years… I can’t see how anyone can assign such superhuman forethought to those who framed it.

Can you, with any accuracy conceive of how things will be 200 years from now?

Of course the Constitution doesn’t cover every relevant issue today, which is why we have laws, in addition to the provisions of the Constitution. The two are not the same.
ks native

United States

#4168 May 20, 2012
Bottom line, i have the right to have my gun and use it if i really need to

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#4169 May 20, 2012
ks native wrote:
Bottom line, i have the right to have my gun and use it if i really need to
You might add, "Within the confines of the legal code".

Just a thought.
Becky K

United States

#4170 May 20, 2012
Second amendment, the law.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#4171 May 20, 2012
Becky K wrote:
Second amendment, the law.
Only speaks to the right to "own" a gun... not the "use" of it.
KANSAS MILITIA

Natoma, KS

#4172 May 21, 2012
It's my god given right to bear arms.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#4173 May 21, 2012
KANSAS MILITIA wrote:
It's my god given right to bear arms.
Only two...:)

“So it's not you, It's them?”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#4174 May 21, 2012
Becky K wrote:
Second amendment, the law.
2nd Amendment absolutists / so-called "Strict" Constitutionalists entertain me. Like your NRA handlers, you guys just can't see the color gray. All is black or white. So you read about about a well-armed militia and think that means you get to own and use whatever firearm you can get your hands on, legally or illegally, semi-automatic or automatic.

My self-defense needs are well-met with my legal sporting arms. That you appear to believe you have the right to own and use any firearm, legal or illegal, makes me believe you lack faith in your ability to defend yourself. Perhaps a good self-defense or gun ownership course would help you gain this faith. Please let me know if you'd like me to refer you to one.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gardner Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
does anyone know virginia navarre and stacy rig... (Dec '08) Apr 28 GO WILDCATS 9
fit jazz Apr 20 sweetpea 1
Anyone heard of William Danny Travis Apr 7 Yeah 1
Julie Bilhimer (Apr '14) Mar '16 random 5
21410 S Gardner Rd (Aug '15) Feb '16 Myjome 6
Are there any illegals in Olathe (Jul '14) Feb '16 Of course 9
News Officials express frustration with hospital Jan '16 dangerous 1
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Gardner Mortgages