CDZ Food for thought: Right to keep and bear arms.

[Ame®icano]

No contradiction.

You need guns to: repel the government from becoming tyrannical, and to overthrow a tyrannical government. Let me put it in perspective for you. The founding fathers were rebel warlords. They talked with the British but when that did not work, they organized with guns and shot the British. It was a bloody revolution. Only one third of the colonial population supported independence at the time. The others were split evenly between loyalism and indifference.

The impetus for the war was that the British we're marching on Lexington and Concord to seize militia arms stockpiles. When the government comes for the guns, that is the point where those who refuse to submit to the will of others start firing.

The founding fathers were well aware that the government they created was not foolproof. Even in a completely homogeneous European white society (as it used to be), the difference of ideals meant the Constitution, and therefore our government, is a conflicted organism born of negotiation of fundamentally different ideas. The potential for it to become tyrannical by moving too far in one direction or the other meant that the populace may need to revolt again, violently. And now today you see that tyrannical government feared by the founding fathers fully formed. We are there.

The current framework of the argument that the 2nd amendment should be eliminated is that people don't need military style weapons and that violence is otherwise never justified unless used by the government itself (e.g. police).

Citizens do need, not just semi auto weapons, but full auto military style weapons because the purpose and intent behind the 2nd amendment is that the citizens need to be able to: protect themselves from tyrannical government, or to overthrow the tyrannical government. But allowing citizens only to have plunking single shot rifles, it eliminates this ability and makes the 2nd amendment nugatory.

Second, violence can be justified. That is how our nation was born. Not every individual is willing to use violence to defend themselves or their loved ones. And that is their lot in life, or their decision. But there are those who do want to exercise the right to defend themselves and others using violence and the 2nd amendment means that even if 99 people oppose that person's decision, their opposition is irrelevant.

The 2nd amendment is somehow, let's say "anti-democratic" in that sense because, of course, the first thing a tyrannical government would do to ensure it's survival prior to implementing more tyrannical measures would be to use the Democratic process, the idea of majority rule, to dispossess the minority view of the right to defend itself against total tyranny.

Can't you defend yourself against the drones and missiles with a shotgun? Must it be an AR?

It seems you're assuming that US armed forces would be used against "we the people".

Sure you can defend. Vietnamese did it. Afghans did it.

But it's not about fight itself, it's about disruption. Five years ago, Tsarnaev brothers bombed Boston marathon using pressure cookers. For two days, Boston was in completely blocked and in chaos. We're talking about just two individuals. Take that serial bomber in Austin, he got whole city on edge with couple of packages.

Imagine what five or eight million AR-15s can do. You think federal government is willing to go against that?

 

[Ame®icano]

4th amendment

all of them refer to our Body Politic, as distinct from the concept of natural rights.

It seems you believe you're only one here that understand the constitution, and that everyone else is wrong.

According to the Constitution itself, the SCOTUS ruling, and so many posters here, you're swimming upstream.

Now, stop watering down the thread and stay on topic. If you don't know what it means, check the dictionary.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

We heard so many times from the left how Trump is racist, Nazi etc.

Here's an interesting thought experiment for your leftist friends and family members:

Imagine your worst nightmares about Trump came true. Imagine that he was instituting the fourth reich using Muslims and liberals as a scapegoat to bring about a totalitarian state in the US. Imagine families were being rounded up and shipped off and never heard from again. Imagine the crushing power of the US government was brought full force against people who were its citizens. Imagine all the protests were put down, at first with tear gas and rubber bullets, and then with live ammunition and mass arrests.

What could you possibly do? What happens when the first amendment fails? You go to the second amendment, which specifically articulates the people of the United States be so equipped as to field real opposition to a tyrannical government with its fully equipped army. That means having access, at least in part, to equipment and weapons that would be capable of opposing it.

Now of course modern warfare is different and you aren't exactly going to have a counter to the air force and armor divisions. But you would, with high capacity weaponry and high powered rifles be able to do a significant amount of damage and perhaps if not overthrow than at least disrupt to the point of capitulation the force of tyranny you faced (through assassination campaigns, kidnappings, "terrorist" acts etc).

The second amendment isn't just for people on the right.

Makes NO DIFFERENCE. Zilch.
I'm sick to my stomach with lack of resolve from the Right.

The Left is being mobilized strong and hard, doesn't matter by whom. The squeaky wheel gets the oil.
By ANY means necessary.
If those wanting to keep the right to own arms remains silent, while those who want to take them go for the jugular, you WILL DEFINITELY lose your right to own firearms.

You can whine and complain all you want......while gun grabbers are getting it done.
You can remain in denial and fool yourself into thinking that when they come to your door to get your guns, you can stop them. No, you can't. But keep dreaming.
Noone ever thought Socialized Federally mandated health care could pass Congress. But it did.
100 years ago, noone ever thought a black man could be President....but it happened.

America is most assuredly being transformed into a Leftist, Progressive hell hole as sure as the sun rises.

As soon as the Left gets the majority back in Congress and takes the WH, I can guarantee you (mark my words), you will Progressively (and MUCH faster than you ever imagined) lose your right to own private firearms if those concerned about their Constitutional rights remain silent as they have been.

Sorry, freedom was never free. And the opposition is paying the price to steal yours while you remain silent.
Venezuelans made the same tragic miscalculation and lack of resistance. Now they have a dictator.

All that is required for evil men to prevail is for good men to remain silent.
And the Right is deadly quiet while the Gun Grabbers Demand an end to your rights to own firearms.
And make NO MISTAKE....THAT is their end game.
And if you think the Constitution or NRA will do it for you......you are in for a rude awakening.

Tick tock.

 

[danielpalos]

yes; it must matter. There is nothing to override in our federal Constitution.

In a discussion of the 2nd amendment, state constitutions do not matter. They cannot address the 2nd amendment.

But at least you, apparently, figured out that the state constitutions are secondary to the US Constitution. So at least you learned something.

lol. it doesn't matter because natural rights are in our State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

Of course it matters. The entire topic is the 2nd amendment. State constitutions and "natural rights" are irrelevant in this conversation.

the People is plural and collective. There are no Individual terms in our federal Constitution.

The phrase "the right" is singular, and the constitution preserves it for all people. I have never seen any rational constitutional scholar claim the 2nd amendment (or the 1st and 4th amendments were collective rights). The entire purpose of the Bill of Rights is to guarantee the rights of the citizens are preserved.

they must be; the Term, People is employed, and that Term is Collective and Plural.

 

[danielpalos]

it is why, I am the one who resorts to the fewest fallacies; whenever this issue comes up.

You keep repeating a lie over and over and you do exactly what a liar always does, claim that you don't lie. No one here believes anything you say save for other left wing liars.

The people are the militia. Well regulated militia of the whole people are declared Necessary.

The militia is necessary. The people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

well regulated militia is necessary. not all of the people are well regulated.

What sort of regulations do you suggest? Disarming the population?

lol. Don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and regulate them well. We can always use, better aqueducts, better roads, and more well regulated militia in our free States.

 

[danielpalos]

4th amendment

all of them refer to our Body Politic, as distinct from the concept of natural rights.

It seems you believe you're only one here that understand the constitution, and that everyone else is wrong.

According to the Constitution itself, the SCOTUS ruling, and so many posters here, you're swimming upstream.

Now, stop watering down the thread and stay on topic. If you don't know what it means, check the dictionary.

I am the resorting to the fewest fallacies; that makes me, "the most holy and most moral" for this purpose.

 

[WinterBorn]

In a discussion of the 2nd amendment, state constitutions do not matter. They cannot address the 2nd amendment.

But at least you, apparently, figured out that the state constitutions are secondary to the US Constitution. So at least you learned something.

lol. it doesn't matter because natural rights are in our State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

Of course it matters. The entire topic is the 2nd amendment. State constitutions and "natural rights" are irrelevant in this conversation.

the People is plural and collective. There are no Individual terms in our federal Constitution.

The phrase "the right" is singular, and the constitution preserves it for all people. I have never seen any rational constitutional scholar claim the 2nd amendment (or the 1st and 4th amendments were collective rights). The entire purpose of the Bill of Rights is to guarantee the rights of the citizens are preserved.

they must be; the Term, People is employed, and that Term is Collective and Plural.

That simply means the right (singular) is for more than one person.

 

[WinterBorn]

4th amendment

all of them refer to our Body Politic, as distinct from the concept of natural rights.

It seems you believe you're only one here that understand the constitution, and that everyone else is wrong.

According to the Constitution itself, the SCOTUS ruling, and so many posters here, you're swimming upstream.

Now, stop watering down the thread and stay on topic. If you don't know what it means, check the dictionary.

I am the resorting to the fewest fallacies; that makes me, "the most holy and most moral" for this purpose.

That is absolute bullshit. YOu have posted several times that state constitutions can override the US Constitution, even after being shown the Supremacy Clause and being given examples of when the US Constitution overruled a state constitution.

So either you are posting fallacies or you are lying. Either way removes your "most holy and most moral" title.

 

[WinterBorn]

You keep repeating a lie over and over and you do exactly what a liar always does, claim that you don't lie. No one here believes anything you say save for other left wing liars.

The people are the militia. Well regulated militia of the whole people are declared Necessary.

The militia is necessary. The people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

well regulated militia is necessary. not all of the people are well regulated.

What sort of regulations do you suggest? Disarming the population?

lol. Don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and regulate them well. We can always use, better aqueducts, better roads, and more well regulated militia in our free States.

I am perfectly willing to bring my guns to join a militia and be well regulated, if the need arises. That is all that is required.

 

[danielpalos]

lol. it doesn't matter because natural rights are in our State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

Of course it matters. The entire topic is the 2nd amendment. State constitutions and "natural rights" are irrelevant in this conversation.

the People is plural and collective. There are no Individual terms in our federal Constitution.

The phrase "the right" is singular, and the constitution preserves it for all people. I have never seen any rational constitutional scholar claim the 2nd amendment (or the 1st and 4th amendments were collective rights). The entire purpose of the Bill of Rights is to guarantee the rights of the citizens are preserved.

they must be; the Term, People is employed, and that Term is Collective and Plural.

That simply means the right (singular) is for more than one person.

the Term, People is employed, and that Term is Collective and Plural; every time this issue comes up.

 

[danielpalos]

4th amendment

all of them refer to our Body Politic, as distinct from the concept of natural rights.

It seems you believe you're only one here that understand the constitution, and that everyone else is wrong.

According to the Constitution itself, the SCOTUS ruling, and so many posters here, you're swimming upstream.

Now, stop watering down the thread and stay on topic. If you don't know what it means, check the dictionary.

I am the resorting to the fewest fallacies; that makes me, "the most holy and most moral" for this purpose.

That is absolute bullshit. YOu have posted several times that state constitutions can override the US Constitution, even after being shown the Supremacy Clause and being given examples of when the US Constitution overruled a state constitution.

So either you are posting fallacies or you are lying. Either way removes your "most holy and most moral" title.

You are simply clueless and Causeless, and simply appeal to ignorance; as is habit and wont, for right wingers.

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions; why would natural rights need to be recognized in our federal Constitution, when they are recognized in State Constitutions and available via due process?

 

[danielpalos]

The people are the militia. Well regulated militia of the whole people are declared Necessary.

The militia is necessary. The people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

well regulated militia is necessary. not all of the people are well regulated.

What sort of regulations do you suggest? Disarming the population?

lol. Don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and regulate them well. We can always use, better aqueducts, better roads, and more well regulated militia in our free States.

I am perfectly willing to bring my guns to join a militia and be well regulated, if the need arises. That is all that is required.

muster the militia until crime goes down!

 

[WinterBorn]

Of course it matters. The entire topic is the 2nd amendment. State constitutions and "natural rights" are irrelevant in this conversation.

the People is plural and collective. There are no Individual terms in our federal Constitution.

The phrase "the right" is singular, and the constitution preserves it for all people. I have never seen any rational constitutional scholar claim the 2nd amendment (or the 1st and 4th amendments were collective rights). The entire purpose of the Bill of Rights is to guarantee the rights of the citizens are preserved.

they must be; the Term, People is employed, and that Term is Collective and Plural.

That simply means the right (singular) is for more than one person.

the Term, People is employed, and that Term is Collective and Plural; every time this issue comes up.

Correct. Because the right is for more than one person.

 

[WinterBorn]

4th amendment

all of them refer to our Body Politic, as distinct from the concept of natural rights.

It seems you believe you're only one here that understand the constitution, and that everyone else is wrong.

According to the Constitution itself, the SCOTUS ruling, and so many posters here, you're swimming upstream.

Now, stop watering down the thread and stay on topic. If you don't know what it means, check the dictionary.

I am the resorting to the fewest fallacies; that makes me, "the most holy and most moral" for this purpose.

That is absolute bullshit. YOu have posted several times that state constitutions can override the US Constitution, even after being shown the Supremacy Clause and being given examples of when the US Constitution overruled a state constitution.

So either you are posting fallacies or you are lying. Either way removes your "most holy and most moral" title.

You are simply clueless and Causeless, and simply appeal to ignorance; as is habit and wont, for right wingers.

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions; why would natural rights need to be recognized in our federal Constitution, when they are recognized in State Constitutions and available via due process?

Clueless & Causeless? That is simply nonsense.

The right for people to keep and bear arms is spelled out in the US Constitution. Whether "natural rights" are in the state constitutions or not is irrelevant to the topic. They cannot override the US Constitution. You continuing to argue this point shows you are clueless to how our system actually works.

 

[WinterBorn]

The militia is necessary. The people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

well regulated militia is necessary. not all of the people are well regulated.

What sort of regulations do you suggest? Disarming the population?

lol. Don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and regulate them well. We can always use, better aqueducts, better roads, and more well regulated militia in our free States.

I am perfectly willing to bring my guns to join a militia and be well regulated, if the need arises. That is all that is required.

muster the militia until crime goes down!

The militia, like the military, is not a police force.

 

[WinterBorn]

4th amendment

all of them refer to our Body Politic, as distinct from the concept of natural rights.

It seems you believe you're only one here that understand the constitution, and that everyone else is wrong.

According to the Constitution itself, the SCOTUS ruling, and so many posters here, you're swimming upstream.

Now, stop watering down the thread and stay on topic. If you don't know what it means, check the dictionary.

I am the resorting to the fewest fallacies; that makes me, "the most holy and most moral" for this purpose.

That is absolute bullshit. YOu have posted several times that state constitutions can override the US Constitution, even after being shown the Supremacy Clause and being given examples of when the US Constitution overruled a state constitution.

So either you are posting fallacies or you are lying. Either way removes your "most holy and most moral" title.

You are simply clueless and Causeless, and simply appeal to ignorance; as is habit and wont, for right wingers.

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions; why would natural rights need to be recognized in our federal Constitution, when they are recognized in State Constitutions and available via due process?

YOur continued attempts to bring "natural law" and state constitutions into a discussion of the 2nd amendment to the US Constitution is either an attempt at diversion or a sign of your cluelessness of how our system works. I'll let you pick which one.

 

[danielpalos]

the People is plural and collective. There are no Individual terms in our federal Constitution.

The phrase "the right" is singular, and the constitution preserves it for all people. I have never seen any rational constitutional scholar claim the 2nd amendment (or the 1st and 4th amendments were collective rights). The entire purpose of the Bill of Rights is to guarantee the rights of the citizens are preserved.

they must be; the Term, People is employed, and that Term is Collective and Plural.

That simply means the right (singular) is for more than one person.

the Term, People is employed, and that Term is Collective and Plural; every time this issue comes up.

Correct. Because the right is for more than one person.

plural or collective?

 

[danielpalos]

all of them refer to our Body Politic, as distinct from the concept of natural rights.

It seems you believe you're only one here that understand the constitution, and that everyone else is wrong.

According to the Constitution itself, the SCOTUS ruling, and so many posters here, you're swimming upstream.

Now, stop watering down the thread and stay on topic. If you don't know what it means, check the dictionary.

I am the resorting to the fewest fallacies; that makes me, "the most holy and most moral" for this purpose.

That is absolute bullshit. YOu have posted several times that state constitutions can override the US Constitution, even after being shown the Supremacy Clause and being given examples of when the US Constitution overruled a state constitution.

So either you are posting fallacies or you are lying. Either way removes your "most holy and most moral" title.

You are simply clueless and Causeless, and simply appeal to ignorance; as is habit and wont, for right wingers.

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions; why would natural rights need to be recognized in our federal Constitution, when they are recognized in State Constitutions and available via due process?

Clueless & Causeless? That is simply nonsense.

The right for people to keep and bear arms is spelled out in the US Constitution. Whether "natural rights" are in the state constitutions or not is irrelevant to the topic. They cannot override the US Constitution. You continuing to argue this point shows you are clueless to how our system actually works.

How many people are not citizens in the several States, for common law for common defense purposes?

 

[danielpalos]

well regulated militia is necessary. not all of the people are well regulated.

What sort of regulations do you suggest? Disarming the population?

lol. Don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and regulate them well. We can always use, better aqueducts, better roads, and more well regulated militia in our free States.

I am perfectly willing to bring my guns to join a militia and be well regulated, if the need arises. That is all that is required.

muster the militia until crime goes down!

The militia, like the military, is not a police force.

nobody takes the right wing seriously about Constitutional law.

 

[danielpalos]

all of them refer to our Body Politic, as distinct from the concept of natural rights.

It seems you believe you're only one here that understand the constitution, and that everyone else is wrong.

According to the Constitution itself, the SCOTUS ruling, and so many posters here, you're swimming upstream.

Now, stop watering down the thread and stay on topic. If you don't know what it means, check the dictionary.

I am the resorting to the fewest fallacies; that makes me, "the most holy and most moral" for this purpose.

That is absolute bullshit. YOu have posted several times that state constitutions can override the US Constitution, even after being shown the Supremacy Clause and being given examples of when the US Constitution overruled a state constitution.

So either you are posting fallacies or you are lying. Either way removes your "most holy and most moral" title.

You are simply clueless and Causeless, and simply appeal to ignorance; as is habit and wont, for right wingers.

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions; why would natural rights need to be recognized in our federal Constitution, when they are recognized in State Constitutions and available via due process?

YOur continued attempts to bring "natural law" and state constitutions into a discussion of the 2nd amendment to the US Constitution is either an attempt at diversion or a sign of your cluelessness of how our system works. I'll let you pick which one.

you are simply ignorant of our form of federal government.