The Right To Bear Arms

[Cellblock2429]

Daniel,

If I understand your argument correctly, the right shall not be infringed if we belong to a well-regulated militia. By "shall not be infringed" the founders meant no restrictions on any arms.

So, if we form a militia here in North Texas, and we become well-regulated, do we get machine guns, bazookas, grenade launchers, claymores, etc.?

/——/ I used to work with a guy like Daniel. He’d take a ridiculous position on a topic and wear you down with nonsensical analogies, contradictory points and when you finally threw your hands up in frustration and walked away he’d say, “See you can't refute my position. Admit I’m right.” Then he’d sit there with a smug grin on his face.

 

[hunarcy]

Thank y'all for ceding the point and the argument; by not being able to, "stand your argumentative ground".

No one ceded the point. They recognized the futility of arguing with a mindless troll. Your dogged repeating of your made up "points" did not make them right. Bye.

In other words, you are just clueless and Cause less.

In other words, I know that the only way to deal with a troll is to ignore their rants...as I now ignore yours.

 

[danielpalos]

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

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

It says, well regulated militia are necessary for the security of a free State not the unorganized militia.

Yes, the right of the people.

The right of well regulated militia not the unorganized militia of the People.

Nope. The 2nd Amendment doesn't say right of the militia.
Nor does it mention restricting the right of the people to those in any militia.

Yes, it does. Well regulated militia of the People are declared Necessary, not the People who are the unorganized militia.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

It says, well regulated militia are necessary for the security of a free State not the unorganized militia.

Yes, the right of the people.

The right of well regulated militia not the unorganized militia of the People.

Nope. The 2nd Amendment doesn't say right of the militia.
Nor does it mention restricting the right of the people to those in any militia.

Yes, it does. Well regulated militia of the People are declared Necessary, not the People who are the unorganized militia.

Yes, it does.

No it doesn't.

 

[danielpalos]

It says, well regulated militia are necessary for the security of a free State not the unorganized militia.

Yes, the right of the people.

The right of well regulated militia not the unorganized militia of the People.

Nope. The 2nd Amendment doesn't say right of the militia.
Nor does it mention restricting the right of the people to those in any militia.

Yes, it does. Well regulated militia of the People are declared Necessary, not the People who are the unorganized militia.

Yes, it does.

No it doesn't.

The People are the militia.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, the right of the people.

The right of well regulated militia not the unorganized militia of the People.

Nope. The 2nd Amendment doesn't say right of the militia.
Nor does it mention restricting the right of the people to those in any militia.

Yes, it does. Well regulated militia of the People are declared Necessary, not the People who are the unorganized militia.

Yes, it does.

No it doesn't.

The People are the militia.

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Yes, it does. Well regulated militia of the People are declared Necessary, not the People who are the unorganized militia.

So, what does it mean to be well-regulated?



No response odds? Any guesses?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I am well-regulated. I am a person (singular of People). I am therefore in the militia, according to Daniel.

Therefore, my right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Therefore, gimme my fucking machine gun.

Thank you.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

"The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both."
— William Rawle, A View of the Constitution 125-6 (2nd ed. 1829)

That guy must be wrong.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

"Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
-- Tench Coxe, in Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution

That can't be right.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."
--Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

Noah Webster must have been a damn fool, that dictionary-making son of a bitch.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

"Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it."
--Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

Oh, shit!!! The lefty communist arguments keep getting shot down by the founders.

 

[hadit]

Thank y'all for ceding the point and the argument; by not being able to, "stand your argumentative ground".

We're near the end on this subject. I've seen this before, and the only thing left is total delirium.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

" ... but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights ..."
-- Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29

Who? What the F does that guy know?

 

[danielpalos]

The right of well regulated militia not the unorganized militia of the People.

Nope. The 2nd Amendment doesn't say right of the militia.
Nor does it mention restricting the right of the people to those in any militia.

Yes, it does. Well regulated militia of the People are declared Necessary, not the People who are the unorganized militia.

Yes, it does.

No it doesn't.

The People are the militia.

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The People who are a well regulated militia.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
-- Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836

What? Nothing about the well-regulated militia having the right? That can't be true.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, it does. Well regulated militia of the People are declared Necessary, not the People who are the unorganized militia.

So, what does it mean to be well-regulated?



No response odds? Any guesses?

That is up to Congress.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

That is up to Congress.

No. See post #4356.

They specifically didn't want Congress to have control.




"The great object is, that every man be armed ... Every one who is able may have a gun."
-- Patrick Henry, Elliot, p.3:386

That doesn't sound like a militia right to me.

 

[danielpalos]

I am well-regulated. I am a person (singular of People). I am therefore in the militia, according to Daniel.

Therefore, my right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Therefore, gimme my fucking machine gun.

Thank you.

No, you are not. Well regulated militia are authorized their own colors, standards, banners and guidons.

 

[danielpalos]

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."
--Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

Noah Webster must have been a damn fool, that dictionary-making son of a bitch.

The unorganized militia is not declared necessary to the security of a free State.