CDZ What The 2nd does NOT Say!

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by DarkFury, Apr 23, 2017.

  1. yiostheoy
    Offline

    yiostheoy Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2016
    Messages:
    18,605
    Thanks Received:
    1,718
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Rocky Mountains
    Ratings:
    +9,114
    No ... this looks too Nazi ... it would piss off a sh!tload of Jews ... then the mod's would be coerced to ban you.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  2. Picaro
    Offline

    Picaro Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2010
    Messages:
    7,393
    Thanks Received:
    1,056
    Trophy Points:
    275
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +4,951
    It's relevant re all the selective narratives re appealing to the original intent of the 2nd. The main reason for the 2nd as far as Madison and the Federalists were concerned was to invent a way for the Feds and state to pay for the troops under the control of the state to put down activities like uppity rioting proles and Shay's Rebellion without having to hire private armies and pay them out of their own pockets. There was a major depression on and banks were seizing the assets and properties and tossing people in debtor's prisons all over the country and those lazy proles had the audacity to get all upset over the decisions of their betters.
     
  3. Picaro
    Offline

    Picaro Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2010
    Messages:
    7,393
    Thanks Received:
    1,056
    Trophy Points:
    275
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +4,951
    Actually that was never the case; I've always been pro-Israel and anti-racist, both left and right wing. I'm an equal opportunity annoyer. When you read the history of Coca Cola under the Nazi state you'll get why.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  4. yiostheoy
    Offline

    yiostheoy Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2016
    Messages:
    18,605
    Thanks Received:
    1,718
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Rocky Mountains
    Ratings:
    +9,114
    If you want Jews to love you then wear a 7 or 9 tipped menorah.
     
  5. yiostheoy
    Offline

    yiostheoy Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2016
    Messages:
    18,605
    Thanks Received:
    1,718
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Rocky Mountains
    Ratings:
    +9,114
    As for me and my house, we will love the Catholic Pope.
     
  6. Picaro
    Offline

    Picaro Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2010
    Messages:
    7,393
    Thanks Received:
    1,056
    Trophy Points:
    275
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +4,951
    Don't care one way or the other whether they love me or not. They have most of the right enemies, as do Xians, so they must doing something right.
     
  7. yiostheoy
    Offline

    yiostheoy Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2016
    Messages:
    18,605
    Thanks Received:
    1,718
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Rocky Mountains
    Ratings:
    +9,114
    Fanatical religions of any kind scare me.

    Catholicism was once fanatical too but that was centuries ago.
     
  8. 2aguy
    Offline

    2aguy Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2014
    Messages:
    53,263
    Thanks Received:
    9,194
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +36,036

    You have to read the whole opinion....and how they got to their decisions.....The legal rulings they cite in Heller.....

    From Heller....where the refer to the right to carry a weapon for self defense....


    p.38

    In the famous fugitive-slave case of Johnson v. Tompkins, 13 F. Cas. 840, 850, 852 (CC Pa. 1833), Baldwin, sitting as a circuit judge, cited both the Second Amendment and the Pennsylvania analogue for his conclusion that a citizen has “a right to carry arms in defence of his property or person, and to use them, if either were assailed with such force, numbers or violence as made it necessary for the protection or safety of either.”
    -----------

    P.39

    In Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846), the Georgia Supreme Court construed the Second Amendment as protecting the “natural right of self-defence” and therefore struck down a ban on carrying pistols openly.
    -------

    p.40

    Likewise, in State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann. 489, 490 (1850), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that citizens had a right to carry arms openly: “This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations.”
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1

Share This Page