The Right To Bear Arms

[boedicca]

You do know, don't you, that you're arguing against the SC and not me?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He is arguing with several voices in his head.

I used to be bipolar; the right wing is so full of fallacy, I had to argue with myself. Now I have a "dual core" processor. Thanks, right wingers.

I told people you were an AI Program!!

Watch the incoherence increase to a state of virtual chaos when he paints himself into a corner. Then he stops, goes away for a few weeks, and comes back, pretending that nothing happened.

Nope; The Supreme Court merely fixed a Precedent for ignoring the "prefatory clause or paragraph", for the "operative clause or paragraph".

Paragraph (2) Only applies to the unorganized militia when they are considered, "civilians" unconnected with militia service, well regulated.

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

Well regulated Militia of the People of a State or the Union, enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment.

That is not a proper interpretation. The Bill of Rights enumerates individual, not collective rights. It is not necessary to be part of a militia to own a gun. But congrats on googling up something that fits your POV.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And yet, fuck you, we have the right to own guns as well.

so what; only well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; defense of self and property is not covered by our Second Amendment.

so what; only well regulated militia may not be Infringed

You are incorrect. Again.

when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union;

My right does not require state or union.

defense of self and property is not covered by our Second Amendment

You are incorrect. Again.

Nope; it says so in our Second Amendment; only well regulated militias of the People are necessary to the security of a free State, not the People who are the unorganized militia.

it says so in our Second Amendment; only well regulated militias of the People are necessary

The word "only" is not in that amendment, doofus.

Limited and express powers, dears. Only the right wing, never gets it.

Exactly. Glad you sobered up enough to admit you were wrong.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The right is the people's, not the militia's.

The People are the Militia; you are either, well regulated or you are not.

The right is the people's, not the militia's.

The People are the Militia; you are either, well regulated or you are not.

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.

The people have the right.
In a militia, not in a militia, well regulated, unregulated, poorly regulated or overregulated, the people have the right.

States have Commanders in Chief of the State militia; there are no well regulated "civilian" militias, Only unorganized militia of gun lovers of the People.

So what? It is a right of the people, not a right of the militia.

It is the right of the People, who are well regulated militia.

It is the right of the People

Exactly! Are you in rehab?

 

[turtledude]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.​

It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

You are making assumptions about why the militia was necessary to the free state. That reason being, as stated by our founders many different times and many different ways, was that a free state does not exist when government has a monopoly of force. This is why the militia was necessary, a paramilitary force, made up of civilians, lead by civilians. In case some government force either tries some sort of coup against the government, or government itself using the military to control, subdue, or roll over on the civilian population. The constitution/BOR has no real power, except for the second amendment where We The People are all armed, and able to defend ourselves and our rights from whatever person or persons that wish to take them away, especially including. Government is not going to make widely unpopular tyrannical laws if it can’t control the population that’s armed.

An armed population is also a deterrent against invading forces, since one army could defeat another army on any given battlefield...but then you’d have to try deal with an entire population that’s also armed, which is just a logistical, and tactical nightmare. E.G. france pretty much started prepping for WW2 almost right after WW1, and it turned out to be wise to do so (problem was they prepped for another WW1, and warfare had drastically changed), but they still had very stout defenses along their boarder near Germany. The Nazis however went around the line, and the French/British weren’t prepared for blitzkrieg, and the Nazis quickly took France out of the fight by taking Paris very quickly. And that was it for the mighty nation of Frances in WW2, the army lost so the country and citizens lost as well. But there’s a smaller neighbor in Switzerland that Germany never attempted to touch despite having a weaker military, no allies, and A LOT to loot to fund the war effort. Why because the Swiss are all heavily armed as well as trained. Afghanistan guerrilla warfare doesn’t hold a candle to what the Swiss could do to an invading force. The Nazis invaded every single other neighbor that wasn’t cooperating, and looted the bejeezus out of them...but they didn’t touch the Swiss, and it wasn’t because the swiss are neutral and hitler respected that.

There is also the issue of natural rights (like most of the BOR is based off of) including the right to self defense, which is natural. You do not have to be a victim, it’s not natural to be a victim. It’s natural for you to have free will, to have your own thoughts and express those thoughts, to have your own privacy and property, and also to defend yourself, with lethal force if need be. I don’t know who would argue with that. This is America we do not judge YOU based on what somebody else did with something they own (I.e. gun, car, knife, computer, whatever). You are not assumed to be a killer just because you own something that can kill, and this includes guns. As long as you don’t use it in a bad way, you have every right to defend yourself with a gun no matter what the attacker is carrying (usually without having to fire a shot). The attacked could be friggen Lebron James with a bat, even if you had a bat as well, your not gonna win that one. With a gun, a midget could win that match (probably without having to fire a shot).

All these reasons make the second amendment a no brainer. Just because you don’t foresee our government going rogue, just means you are very short sighted with short term memory, even to the present day world around you. We just saw an attempted coup a year ago in a 1st world, modern NATO ally. 35 years ago the Soviet’s were rolling into countries that couldn’t do squat about it because the citizens weren’t armed. Cubans are still screwed and can’t do anything against the military aristocracy, and our southern neighbors are also screwed living in a democracy with loads of gun control, but can’t do anything against their corrupt government and their country is more dangerous than the war zone afghanistan. Yet in the US gun sales, gun ownership, and ccws have skyrocketed, since the 90s, yet gun crime has dropped 50% in the same time period...and people are still claiming guns are the problem?

/----/ What amazes me about the Gun Grabbers is their willingness to use a microscope and original intent to justify their view of the 2nd Amendment, yet when it comes to the Constitutionality of abortion rights they dismiss it with an "Oh that's covered by the Good and Plenty Clause of the Constitution. No further discussion is necessary."

worse yet, buying into the commerce clause contortion FDR and his pet monkeys in black robes engaged in

 

[Papageorgio]

The People are the Militia; you are either, well regulated or you are not.

The People are the Militia; you are either, well regulated or you are not.

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.

The people have the right.
In a militia, not in a militia, well regulated, unregulated, poorly regulated or overregulated, the people have the right.

States have Commanders in Chief of the State militia; there are no well regulated "civilian" militias, Only unorganized militia of gun lovers of the People.

So what? It is a right of the people, not a right of the militia.

It is the right of the People, who are well regulated militia.

It is the right of the People

Exactly! Are you in rehab?

It’s obvious he has no idea what he is talking about, all he has are talking points that have failed over and over. His education seems to be limited to whatever the DNC tells him to believe.

 

[sakinago]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.​

It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

You are making assumptions about why the militia was necessary to the free state. That reason being, as stated by our founders many different times and many different ways, was that a free state does not exist when government has a monopoly of force. This is why the militia was necessary, a paramilitary force, made up of civilians, lead by civilians. In case some government force either tries some sort of coup against the government, or government itself using the military to control, subdue, or roll over on the civilian population. The constitution/BOR has no real power, except for the second amendment where We The People are all armed, and able to defend ourselves and our rights from whatever person or persons that wish to take them away, especially including. Government is not going to make widely unpopular tyrannical laws if it can’t control the population that’s armed.

An armed population is also a deterrent against invading forces, since one army could defeat another army on any given battlefield...but then you’d have to try deal with an entire population that’s also armed, which is just a logistical, and tactical nightmare. E.G. france pretty much started prepping for WW2 almost right after WW1, and it turned out to be wise to do so (problem was they prepped for another WW1, and warfare had drastically changed), but they still had very stout defenses along their boarder near Germany. The Nazis however went around the line, and the French/British weren’t prepared for blitzkrieg, and the Nazis quickly took France out of the fight by taking Paris very quickly. And that was it for the mighty nation of Frances in WW2, the army lost so the country and citizens lost as well. But there’s a smaller neighbor in Switzerland that Germany never attempted to touch despite having a weaker military, no allies, and A LOT to loot to fund the war effort. Why because the Swiss are all heavily armed as well as trained. Afghanistan guerrilla warfare doesn’t hold a candle to what the Swiss could do to an invading force. The Nazis invaded every single other neighbor that wasn’t cooperating, and looted the bejeezus out of them...but they didn’t touch the Swiss, and it wasn’t because the swiss are neutral and hitler respected that.

There is also the issue of natural rights (like most of the BOR is based off of) including the right to self defense, which is natural. You do not have to be a victim, it’s not natural to be a victim. It’s natural for you to have free will, to have your own thoughts and express those thoughts, to have your own privacy and property, and also to defend yourself, with lethal force if need be. I don’t know who would argue with that. This is America we do not judge YOU based on what somebody else did with something they own (I.e. gun, car, knife, computer, whatever). You are not assumed to be a killer just because you own something that can kill, and this includes guns. As long as you don’t use it in a bad way, you have every right to defend yourself with a gun no matter what the attacker is carrying (usually without having to fire a shot). The attacked could be friggen Lebron James with a bat, even if you had a bat as well, your not gonna win that one. With a gun, a midget could win that match (probably without having to fire a shot).

All these reasons make the second amendment a no brainer. Just because you don’t foresee our government going rogue, just means you are very short sighted with short term memory, even to the present day world around you. We just saw an attempted coup a year ago in a 1st world, modern NATO ally. 35 years ago the Soviet’s were rolling into countries that couldn’t do squat about it because the citizens weren’t armed. Cubans are still screwed and can’t do anything against the military aristocracy, and our southern neighbors are also screwed living in a democracy with loads of gun control, but can’t do anything against their corrupt government and their country is more dangerous than the war zone afghanistan. Yet in the US gun sales, gun ownership, and ccws have skyrocketed, since the 90s, yet gun crime has dropped 50% in the same time period...and people are still claiming guns are the problem?

/----/ What amazes me about the Gun Grabbers is their willingness to use a microscope and original intent to justify their view of the 2nd Amendment, yet when it comes to the Constitutionality of abortion rights they dismiss it with an "Oh that's covered by the Good and Plenty Clause of the Constitution. No further discussion is necessary."

then, dears, get some social morals for free and stop whining about taxes.

Wow talk about the moby dick of red herrings

 

[hadit]

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.

The people have the right.
In a militia, not in a militia, well regulated, unregulated, poorly regulated or overregulated, the people have the right.

States have Commanders in Chief of the State militia; there are no well regulated "civilian" militias, Only unorganized militia of gun lovers of the People.

So what? It is a right of the people, not a right of the militia.

It is the right of the People, who are well regulated militia.

It is the right of the People

Exactly! Are you in rehab?

It’s obvious he has no idea what he is talking about, all he has are talking points that have failed over and over. His education seems to be limited to whatever the DNC tells him to believe.

And the more obvious that becomes, the less coherent his posts become. I get the image of a robot spluttering and showing sparks everywhere when it's presented with incontrovertable eminence that its programming is wrong.

 

[sakinago]

States have Commanders in Chief of the State militia; there are no well regulated "civilian" militias, Only unorganized militia of gun lovers of the People.

So what? It is a right of the people, not a right of the militia.

It is the right of the People, who are well regulated militia.

It is the right of the People

Exactly! Are you in rehab?

It’s obvious he has no idea what he is talking about, all he has are talking points that have failed over and over. His education seems to be limited to whatever the DNC tells him to believe.

And the more obvious that becomes, the less coherent his posts become. I get the image of a robot spluttering and showing sparks everywhere when it's presented with incontrovertable eminence that its programming is wrong.

It really does, it’s like the more facts you throw his way, the more he wants to use big words, but he doesn’t have the vocabulary for, so he just goes for lofty abstract generalizations that he doesn’t even comprehend...just as long as he can string together a few medium sized words referencing a concept that’s distracts from the original point. It’s an utterly stupid tactic, unless you feel like the people you are debating know less than you, but he should know at this point they don’t...but you got to keep stroking that ego even when you’re wrong.

 

[frigidweirdo]

This is embarrassing right?

A guy who's boasting that he goes to LAW SCHOOLS to talk about the Second Amendment, and you can't even talk to ME about this one document.

Of course this document is relevant. This is the process the Founding Fathers took in order to come to the final conclusion about what the Second Amendment means.

You don't have ANY evidence that "bear arms" means "carry arms" and you have this document among other documents and Supreme Court decisions that I haven't even presented yet that points to "bear arms" being the right of individuals to be in the militia.

And you, with your massive resume of stuff and you can't even discuss this.

It's a big WOW from me.

you are being anal and stupid.

what was the pre-existing natural right the founders sought to guarantee with the second amendment?

No, I'm not being anal or stupid. I presented my case, I used the document to back myself up with. You haven't even spoken about it. You've done everything in your power to avoid talking about what I have said. Now you're on to words like "anal and stupid", when will the insults come? Like I said, it happens ever time. Why? Because it's not in your AGENDA to accept the FACTS.

You can say it's a "per-existing natural right", but the reality is it doesn't matter.

We're dealing with the SECOND AMENDMENT. We both know that this merely protects what is seen as the right. Whether it's a right or not is neither here nor there. We're dealing with the document that protects what people feel is the right.

Now, what rights does the 2A protect?

Well, the founding fathers said that the "right to bear arms", the right they are protecting, is the right to be in the militia. This is what the SECOND AMENDMENT says. Right?

you're a moron. you are too stupid to understand that a natural right that pre-exists government does not involve a "right" to serve the government

I predicted it, didn't I?

I said the insults would come.

How is it that I'm the moron?

I ask you about a historical document and you can't respond.

There's no way on this planet that you're a lawyer, no way on this planet that you go to law schools and talk about the Second Amendment.

Now go take your insults and FUCK OFF>

you're another low grade moron who wants to prove to himself he is smart so you post some irrelevant nonsense and pretend its intelligent. that document means nothing and the fact that you don't understand why, explains why you are so stupid

Oh please.

I've set out my case. You can't argue it.

You're the one insulting, not me.

Irrelevant nonsense? What the Founding Father said concerning the term "bear arms" is irrelevant?

No, it's not irrelevant, in fact it's extremely irrelevant, however it doesn't fit your agenda.

Seriously dude, you've made up this bullshit about being a lawyer, come off it.

You didn't try and argue you case. I mean, would a lawyer go into court and be like "no your honor, the defense lawyer's a moron"

YOU HAVE NOTHING. No argument. I said you'd pull the insults out of your ass, and you're pulling the insults out of your ass.

If the definition of "moron" to you is someone who has an argument, then fine. But really, you're not a lawyer and you probably only go to law school to serve them food.

 

[frigidweirdo]

So, am I being ignored now? Claiming all this stuff, and yet can't talk about one document?

NOt relevant.

It doesn't have any impact on what I have said

This is embarrassing right?

A guy who's boasting that he goes to LAW SCHOOLS to talk about the Second Amendment, and you can't even talk to ME about this one document.

Of course this document is relevant. This is the process the Founding Fathers took in order to come to the final conclusion about what the Second Amendment means.

You don't have ANY evidence that "bear arms" means "carry arms" and you have this document among other documents and Supreme Court decisions that I haven't even presented yet that points to "bear arms" being the right of individuals to be in the militia.

And you, with your massive resume of stuff and you can't even discuss this.

It's a big WOW from me.

you are being anal and stupid.

what was the pre-existing natural right the founders sought to guarantee with the second amendment?

No, I'm not being anal or stupid. I presented my case, I used the document to back myself up with. You haven't even spoken about it. You've done everything in your power to avoid talking about what I have said. Now you're on to words like "anal and stupid", when will the insults come? Like I said, it happens ever time. Why? Because it's not in your AGENDA to accept the FACTS.

You can say it's a "per-existing natural right", but the reality is it doesn't matter.

We're dealing with the SECOND AMENDMENT. We both know that this merely protects what is seen as the right. Whether it's a right or not is neither here nor there. We're dealing with the document that protects what people feel is the right.

Now, what rights does the 2A protect?

Well, the founding fathers said that the "right to bear arms", the right they are protecting, is the right to be in the militia. This is what the SECOND AMENDMENT says. Right?

there is no right to be in the Militia once congress grabbed complete control over that with the militia act. the right is that free citizens can be armed free of federal interference You're just another gun banning moron who wants to reinterpret the 2A to meet your stupid bannerrhoid schemes

Then answer this one.

In 1903 they made the Dick Act.

Lawyers would know where to find this act, so I'm posting this here so you can find it. Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia

This was basically to make the National Guard. They wanted the National Guard to professionalize the Militia. The militia had shown itself to be ineffective at dealing with some of the wars that the US had been fighting.

They also made the "unorganized militia". Why? What was the purpose of making the "unorganized militia"?

Why bother to go to the trouble to say to men aged 17 to 45 are in the militia, but it's a militia that has no command, has no purpose, they can't join together and do anything, it's a name with no substance?

The simple answer is this. They knew that if they made the National Guard and excluded individuals from the National Guard, they could DEMAND to be in the National Guard because they had a right to be in the militia. They had a right to "render military service" in the militia and "militia duty".

So they made an "unorganized militia" so that these people couldn't demand this, because they're already in the militia.

Unless of course you, as a fake lawyer, can find any reason for the "unorganized militia" to have been placed into law.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.​

It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

You are making assumptions about why the militia was necessary to the free state. That reason being, as stated by our founders many different times and many different ways, was that a free state does not exist when government has a monopoly of force. This is why the militia was necessary, a paramilitary force, made up of civilians, lead by civilians. In case some government force either tries some sort of coup against the government, or government itself using the military to control, subdue, or roll over on the civilian population. The constitution/BOR has no real power, except for the second amendment where We The People are all armed, and able to defend ourselves and our rights from whatever person or persons that wish to take them away, especially including. Government is not going to make widely unpopular tyrannical laws if it can’t control the population that’s armed.

An armed population is also a deterrent against invading forces, since one army could defeat another army on any given battlefield...but then you’d have to try deal with an entire population that’s also armed, which is just a logistical, and tactical nightmare. E.G. france pretty much started prepping for WW2 almost right after WW1, and it turned out to be wise to do so (problem was they prepped for another WW1, and warfare had drastically changed), but they still had very stout defenses along their boarder near Germany. The Nazis however went around the line, and the French/British weren’t prepared for blitzkrieg, and the Nazis quickly took France out of the fight by taking Paris very quickly. And that was it for the mighty nation of Frances in WW2, the army lost so the country and citizens lost as well. But there’s a smaller neighbor in Switzerland that Germany never attempted to touch despite having a weaker military, no allies, and A LOT to loot to fund the war effort. Why because the Swiss are all heavily armed as well as trained. Afghanistan guerrilla warfare doesn’t hold a candle to what the Swiss could do to an invading force. The Nazis invaded every single other neighbor that wasn’t cooperating, and looted the bejeezus out of them...but they didn’t touch the Swiss, and it wasn’t because the swiss are neutral and hitler respected that.

There is also the issue of natural rights (like most of the BOR is based off of) including the right to self defense, which is natural. You do not have to be a victim, it’s not natural to be a victim. It’s natural for you to have free will, to have your own thoughts and express those thoughts, to have your own privacy and property, and also to defend yourself, with lethal force if need be. I don’t know who would argue with that. This is America we do not judge YOU based on what somebody else did with something they own (I.e. gun, car, knife, computer, whatever). You are not assumed to be a killer just because you own something that can kill, and this includes guns. As long as you don’t use it in a bad way, you have every right to defend yourself with a gun no matter what the attacker is carrying (usually without having to fire a shot). The attacked could be friggen Lebron James with a bat, even if you had a bat as well, your not gonna win that one. With a gun, a midget could win that match (probably without having to fire a shot).

All these reasons make the second amendment a no brainer. Just because you don’t foresee our government going rogue, just means you are very short sighted with short term memory, even to the present day world around you. We just saw an attempted coup a year ago in a 1st world, modern NATO ally. 35 years ago the Soviet’s were rolling into countries that couldn’t do squat about it because the citizens weren’t armed. Cubans are still screwed and can’t do anything against the military aristocracy, and our southern neighbors are also screwed living in a democracy with loads of gun control, but can’t do anything against their corrupt government and their country is more dangerous than the war zone afghanistan. Yet in the US gun sales, gun ownership, and ccws have skyrocketed, since the 90s, yet gun crime has dropped 50% in the same time period...and people are still claiming guns are the problem?

/----/ What amazes me about the Gun Grabbers is their willingness to use a microscope and original intent to justify their view of the 2nd Amendment, yet when it comes to the Constitutionality of abortion rights they dismiss it with an "Oh that's covered by the Good and Plenty Clause of the Constitution. No further discussion is necessary."

worse yet, buying into the commerce clause contortion FDR and his pet monkeys in black robes engaged in

The ridiculous, reactionary right.

Your anachronistic fantasy of returning to a Lochner era regulatory paradigm is as childish as it is untenable.

 

[sakinago]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.​

It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

You are making assumptions about why the militia was necessary to the free state. That reason being, as stated by our founders many different times and many different ways, was that a free state does not exist when government has a monopoly of force. This is why the militia was necessary, a paramilitary force, made up of civilians, lead by civilians. In case some government force either tries some sort of coup against the government, or government itself using the military to control, subdue, or roll over on the civilian population. The constitution/BOR has no real power, except for the second amendment where We The People are all armed, and able to defend ourselves and our rights from whatever person or persons that wish to take them away, especially including. Government is not going to make widely unpopular tyrannical laws if it can’t control the population that’s armed.

An armed population is also a deterrent against invading forces, since one army could defeat another army on any given battlefield...but then you’d have to try deal with an entire population that’s also armed, which is just a logistical, and tactical nightmare. E.G. france pretty much started prepping for WW2 almost right after WW1, and it turned out to be wise to do so (problem was they prepped for another WW1, and warfare had drastically changed), but they still had very stout defenses along their boarder near Germany. The Nazis however went around the line, and the French/British weren’t prepared for blitzkrieg, and the Nazis quickly took France out of the fight by taking Paris very quickly. And that was it for the mighty nation of Frances in WW2, the army lost so the country and citizens lost as well. But there’s a smaller neighbor in Switzerland that Germany never attempted to touch despite having a weaker military, no allies, and A LOT to loot to fund the war effort. Why because the Swiss are all heavily armed as well as trained. Afghanistan guerrilla warfare doesn’t hold a candle to what the Swiss could do to an invading force. The Nazis invaded every single other neighbor that wasn’t cooperating, and looted the bejeezus out of them...but they didn’t touch the Swiss, and it wasn’t because the swiss are neutral and hitler respected that.

There is also the issue of natural rights (like most of the BOR is based off of) including the right to self defense, which is natural. You do not have to be a victim, it’s not natural to be a victim. It’s natural for you to have free will, to have your own thoughts and express those thoughts, to have your own privacy and property, and also to defend yourself, with lethal force if need be. I don’t know who would argue with that. This is America we do not judge YOU based on what somebody else did with something they own (I.e. gun, car, knife, computer, whatever). You are not assumed to be a killer just because you own something that can kill, and this includes guns. As long as you don’t use it in a bad way, you have every right to defend yourself with a gun no matter what the attacker is carrying (usually without having to fire a shot). The attacked could be friggen Lebron James with a bat, even if you had a bat as well, your not gonna win that one. With a gun, a midget could win that match (probably without having to fire a shot).

All these reasons make the second amendment a no brainer. Just because you don’t foresee our government going rogue, just means you are very short sighted with short term memory, even to the present day world around you. We just saw an attempted coup a year ago in a 1st world, modern NATO ally. 35 years ago the Soviet’s were rolling into countries that couldn’t do squat about it because the citizens weren’t armed. Cubans are still screwed and can’t do anything against the military aristocracy, and our southern neighbors are also screwed living in a democracy with loads of gun control, but can’t do anything against their corrupt government and their country is more dangerous than the war zone afghanistan. Yet in the US gun sales, gun ownership, and ccws have skyrocketed, since the 90s, yet gun crime has dropped 50% in the same time period...and people are still claiming guns are the problem?

/----/ What amazes me about the Gun Grabbers is their willingness to use a microscope and original intent to justify their view of the 2nd Amendment, yet when it comes to the Constitutionality of abortion rights they dismiss it with an "Oh that's covered by the Good and Plenty Clause of the Constitution. No further discussion is necessary."

worse yet, buying into the commerce clause contortion FDR and his pet monkeys in black robes engaged in

The ridiculous, reactionary right.

Your anachronistic fantasy of returning to a Lochner era regulatory paradigm is as childish as it is untenable.

Here’s an example of someone trying to use big words to make them look smarter but it actually has the opposite effect (this is well documented).

What is more realistic...deporting all Mexicans or getting rid of all guns?

 

[sakinago]

Thank you Seth McFarland (if you can’t tell I’m still watching fox after the cowboys game). Get the Simpson’s off, McFarland is a leftist that surrounds himself with the strawman to keep his world going...but is somehow more reasonable than the world we live in today (which he is satiring as we speak in family guy now)

 

[turtledude]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.​

It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

You are making assumptions about why the militia was necessary to the free state. That reason being, as stated by our founders many different times and many different ways, was that a free state does not exist when government has a monopoly of force. This is why the militia was necessary, a paramilitary force, made up of civilians, lead by civilians. In case some government force either tries some sort of coup against the government, or government itself using the military to control, subdue, or roll over on the civilian population. The constitution/BOR has no real power, except for the second amendment where We The People are all armed, and able to defend ourselves and our rights from whatever person or persons that wish to take them away, especially including. Government is not going to make widely unpopular tyrannical laws if it can’t control the population that’s armed.

An armed population is also a deterrent against invading forces, since one army could defeat another army on any given battlefield...but then you’d have to try deal with an entire population that’s also armed, which is just a logistical, and tactical nightmare. E.G. france pretty much started prepping for WW2 almost right after WW1, and it turned out to be wise to do so (problem was they prepped for another WW1, and warfare had drastically changed), but they still had very stout defenses along their boarder near Germany. The Nazis however went around the line, and the French/British weren’t prepared for blitzkrieg, and the Nazis quickly took France out of the fight by taking Paris very quickly. And that was it for the mighty nation of Frances in WW2, the army lost so the country and citizens lost as well. But there’s a smaller neighbor in Switzerland that Germany never attempted to touch despite having a weaker military, no allies, and A LOT to loot to fund the war effort. Why because the Swiss are all heavily armed as well as trained. Afghanistan guerrilla warfare doesn’t hold a candle to what the Swiss could do to an invading force. The Nazis invaded every single other neighbor that wasn’t cooperating, and looted the bejeezus out of them...but they didn’t touch the Swiss, and it wasn’t because the swiss are neutral and hitler respected that.

There is also the issue of natural rights (like most of the BOR is based off of) including the right to self defense, which is natural. You do not have to be a victim, it’s not natural to be a victim. It’s natural for you to have free will, to have your own thoughts and express those thoughts, to have your own privacy and property, and also to defend yourself, with lethal force if need be. I don’t know who would argue with that. This is America we do not judge YOU based on what somebody else did with something they own (I.e. gun, car, knife, computer, whatever). You are not assumed to be a killer just because you own something that can kill, and this includes guns. As long as you don’t use it in a bad way, you have every right to defend yourself with a gun no matter what the attacker is carrying (usually without having to fire a shot). The attacked could be friggen Lebron James with a bat, even if you had a bat as well, your not gonna win that one. With a gun, a midget could win that match (probably without having to fire a shot).

All these reasons make the second amendment a no brainer. Just because you don’t foresee our government going rogue, just means you are very short sighted with short term memory, even to the present day world around you. We just saw an attempted coup a year ago in a 1st world, modern NATO ally. 35 years ago the Soviet’s were rolling into countries that couldn’t do squat about it because the citizens weren’t armed. Cubans are still screwed and can’t do anything against the military aristocracy, and our southern neighbors are also screwed living in a democracy with loads of gun control, but can’t do anything against their corrupt government and their country is more dangerous than the war zone afghanistan. Yet in the US gun sales, gun ownership, and ccws have skyrocketed, since the 90s, yet gun crime has dropped 50% in the same time period...and people are still claiming guns are the problem?

/----/ What amazes me about the Gun Grabbers is their willingness to use a microscope and original intent to justify their view of the 2nd Amendment, yet when it comes to the Constitutionality of abortion rights they dismiss it with an "Oh that's covered by the Good and Plenty Clause of the Constitution. No further discussion is necessary."

worse yet, buying into the commerce clause contortion FDR and his pet monkeys in black robes engaged in

The ridiculous, reactionary right.

Your anachronistic fantasy of returning to a Lochner era regulatory paradigm is as childish as it is untenable.

The wish I really had a law degree from a school that matters.

 

[turtledude]

you are being anal and stupid.

what was the pre-existing natural right the founders sought to guarantee with the second amendment?

No, I'm not being anal or stupid. I presented my case, I used the document to back myself up with. You haven't even spoken about it. You've done everything in your power to avoid talking about what I have said. Now you're on to words like "anal and stupid", when will the insults come? Like I said, it happens ever time. Why? Because it's not in your AGENDA to accept the FACTS.

You can say it's a "per-existing natural right", but the reality is it doesn't matter.

We're dealing with the SECOND AMENDMENT. We both know that this merely protects what is seen as the right. Whether it's a right or not is neither here nor there. We're dealing with the document that protects what people feel is the right.

Now, what rights does the 2A protect?

Well, the founding fathers said that the "right to bear arms", the right they are protecting, is the right to be in the militia. This is what the SECOND AMENDMENT says. Right?

you're a moron. you are too stupid to understand that a natural right that pre-exists government does not involve a "right" to serve the government

I predicted it, didn't I?

I said the insults would come.

How is it that I'm the moron?

I ask you about a historical document and you can't respond.

There's no way on this planet that you're a lawyer, no way on this planet that you go to law schools and talk about the Second Amendment.

Now go take your insults and FUCK OFF>

you're another low grade moron who wants to prove to himself he is smart so you post some irrelevant nonsense and pretend its intelligent. that document means nothing and the fact that you don't understand why, explains why you are so stupid

Oh please.

I've set out my case. You can't argue it.

You're the one insulting, not me.

Irrelevant nonsense? What the Founding Father said concerning the term "bear arms" is irrelevant?

No, it's not irrelevant, in fact it's extremely irrelevant, however it doesn't fit your agenda.

Seriously dude, you've made up this bullshit about being a lawyer, come off it.

You didn't try and argue you case. I mean, would a lawyer go into court and be like "no your honor, the defense lawyer's a moron"

YOU HAVE NOTHING. No argument. I said you'd pull the insults out of your ass, and you're pulling the insults out of your ass.

If the definition of "moron" to you is someone who has an argument, then fine. But really, you're not a lawyer and you probably only go to law school to serve them food.

you sound like one of those sovereign citizen types. how can a right that pre-exists government require membership in a government entity to vest?

 

[turtledude]

NOt relevant.

It doesn't have any impact on what I have said

This is embarrassing right?

A guy who's boasting that he goes to LAW SCHOOLS to talk about the Second Amendment, and you can't even talk to ME about this one document.

Of course this document is relevant. This is the process the Founding Fathers took in order to come to the final conclusion about what the Second Amendment means.

You don't have ANY evidence that "bear arms" means "carry arms" and you have this document among other documents and Supreme Court decisions that I haven't even presented yet that points to "bear arms" being the right of individuals to be in the militia.

And you, with your massive resume of stuff and you can't even discuss this.

It's a big WOW from me.

you are being anal and stupid.

what was the pre-existing natural right the founders sought to guarantee with the second amendment?

No, I'm not being anal or stupid. I presented my case, I used the document to back myself up with. You haven't even spoken about it. You've done everything in your power to avoid talking about what I have said. Now you're on to words like "anal and stupid", when will the insults come? Like I said, it happens ever time. Why? Because it's not in your AGENDA to accept the FACTS.

You can say it's a "per-existing natural right", but the reality is it doesn't matter.

We're dealing with the SECOND AMENDMENT. We both know that this merely protects what is seen as the right. Whether it's a right or not is neither here nor there. We're dealing with the document that protects what people feel is the right.

Now, what rights does the 2A protect?

Well, the founding fathers said that the "right to bear arms", the right they are protecting, is the right to be in the militia. This is what the SECOND AMENDMENT says. Right?

there is no right to be in the Militia once congress grabbed complete control over that with the militia act. the right is that free citizens can be armed free of federal interference You're just another gun banning moron who wants to reinterpret the 2A to meet your stupid bannerrhoid schemes

Then answer this one.

In 1903 they made the Dick Act.

Lawyers would know where to find this act, so I'm posting this here so you can find it. Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia

This was basically to make the National Guard. They wanted the National Guard to professionalize the Militia. The militia had shown itself to be ineffective at dealing with some of the wars that the US had been fighting.

They also made the "unorganized militia". Why? What was the purpose of making the "unorganized militia"?

Why bother to go to the trouble to say to men aged 17 to 45 are in the militia, but it's a militia that has no command, has no purpose, they can't join together and do anything, it's a name with no substance?

The simple answer is this. They knew that if they made the National Guard and excluded individuals from the National Guard, they could DEMAND to be in the National Guard because they had a right to be in the militia. They had a right to "render military service" in the militia and "militia duty".

So they made an "unorganized militia" so that these people couldn't demand this, because they're already in the militia.

Unless of course you, as a fake lawyer, can find any reason for the "unorganized militia" to have been placed into law.

damn you're one dumb MF. Why don't women have this same right? or those over the age of 45. what other constitutional right disappears based on not having a swinging dick or being over 45 in age

 

[frigidweirdo]

No, I'm not being anal or stupid. I presented my case, I used the document to back myself up with. You haven't even spoken about it. You've done everything in your power to avoid talking about what I have said. Now you're on to words like "anal and stupid", when will the insults come? Like I said, it happens ever time. Why? Because it's not in your AGENDA to accept the FACTS.

You can say it's a "per-existing natural right", but the reality is it doesn't matter.

We're dealing with the SECOND AMENDMENT. We both know that this merely protects what is seen as the right. Whether it's a right or not is neither here nor there. We're dealing with the document that protects what people feel is the right.

Now, what rights does the 2A protect?

Well, the founding fathers said that the "right to bear arms", the right they are protecting, is the right to be in the militia. This is what the SECOND AMENDMENT says. Right?

you're a moron. you are too stupid to understand that a natural right that pre-exists government does not involve a "right" to serve the government

I predicted it, didn't I?

I said the insults would come.

How is it that I'm the moron?

I ask you about a historical document and you can't respond.

There's no way on this planet that you're a lawyer, no way on this planet that you go to law schools and talk about the Second Amendment.

Now go take your insults and FUCK OFF>

you're another low grade moron who wants to prove to himself he is smart so you post some irrelevant nonsense and pretend its intelligent. that document means nothing and the fact that you don't understand why, explains why you are so stupid

Oh please.

I've set out my case. You can't argue it.

You're the one insulting, not me.

Irrelevant nonsense? What the Founding Father said concerning the term "bear arms" is irrelevant?

No, it's not irrelevant, in fact it's extremely irrelevant, however it doesn't fit your agenda.

Seriously dude, you've made up this bullshit about being a lawyer, come off it.

You didn't try and argue you case. I mean, would a lawyer go into court and be like "no your honor, the defense lawyer's a moron"

YOU HAVE NOTHING. No argument. I said you'd pull the insults out of your ass, and you're pulling the insults out of your ass.

If the definition of "moron" to you is someone who has an argument, then fine. But really, you're not a lawyer and you probably only go to law school to serve them food.

you sound like one of those sovereign citizen types. how can a right that pre-exists government require membership in a government entity to vest?

And again, you're unable to talk about my argument. I couldn't give a fuck what you think I sound like.

No matter whether you think there's a pre-existing right or not, we're not talking about the pre-existing right, are we? We're talking about the SECOND AMENDMENT. The Second Amendment is there to PROTECT what people see as the pre-existing right. So, it doesn't matter whether you think there's a right or not, the Second Amendment exists and it is the law.

We're talking about LAW, you're supposed to be a LAWYER, ever noticed that the word LAWYER contains the word LAW and not the words pre-existing rights?

 

[frigidweirdo]

This is embarrassing right?

A guy who's boasting that he goes to LAW SCHOOLS to talk about the Second Amendment, and you can't even talk to ME about this one document.

Of course this document is relevant. This is the process the Founding Fathers took in order to come to the final conclusion about what the Second Amendment means.

You don't have ANY evidence that "bear arms" means "carry arms" and you have this document among other documents and Supreme Court decisions that I haven't even presented yet that points to "bear arms" being the right of individuals to be in the militia.

And you, with your massive resume of stuff and you can't even discuss this.

It's a big WOW from me.

you are being anal and stupid.

what was the pre-existing natural right the founders sought to guarantee with the second amendment?

No, I'm not being anal or stupid. I presented my case, I used the document to back myself up with. You haven't even spoken about it. You've done everything in your power to avoid talking about what I have said. Now you're on to words like "anal and stupid", when will the insults come? Like I said, it happens ever time. Why? Because it's not in your AGENDA to accept the FACTS.

You can say it's a "per-existing natural right", but the reality is it doesn't matter.

We're dealing with the SECOND AMENDMENT. We both know that this merely protects what is seen as the right. Whether it's a right or not is neither here nor there. We're dealing with the document that protects what people feel is the right.

Now, what rights does the 2A protect?

Well, the founding fathers said that the "right to bear arms", the right they are protecting, is the right to be in the militia. This is what the SECOND AMENDMENT says. Right?

there is no right to be in the Militia once congress grabbed complete control over that with the militia act. the right is that free citizens can be armed free of federal interference You're just another gun banning moron who wants to reinterpret the 2A to meet your stupid bannerrhoid schemes

Then answer this one.

In 1903 they made the Dick Act.

Lawyers would know where to find this act, so I'm posting this here so you can find it. Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia

This was basically to make the National Guard. They wanted the National Guard to professionalize the Militia. The militia had shown itself to be ineffective at dealing with some of the wars that the US had been fighting.

They also made the "unorganized militia". Why? What was the purpose of making the "unorganized militia"?

Why bother to go to the trouble to say to men aged 17 to 45 are in the militia, but it's a militia that has no command, has no purpose, they can't join together and do anything, it's a name with no substance?

The simple answer is this. They knew that if they made the National Guard and excluded individuals from the National Guard, they could DEMAND to be in the National Guard because they had a right to be in the militia. They had a right to "render military service" in the militia and "militia duty".

So they made an "unorganized militia" so that these people couldn't demand this, because they're already in the militia.

Unless of course you, as a fake lawyer, can find any reason for the "unorganized militia" to have been placed into law.

damn you're one dumb MF. Why don't women have this same right? or those over the age of 45. what other constitutional right disappears based on not having a swinging dick or being over 45 in age

Again, your argument is an insult.

Try not insulting and I might discuss your point.

 

[francoHFW]

It's definitely not the most important amendment, like most conservatives argue, but it's not obsolete. We're the United Freakin States. We were founded on a revolutionary crazy notion that people are allowed to be as free as they want.

If you take away that crazy, then we're closer to being like the French. And no one wants that.

Who you know nothing about, hater dupe

 

[Markle]

You don't have ANY evidence that "bear arms" means "carry arms"

What? You're just being facetious...aren't you?