2nd Amendment Unapologetic Meaning

[capego]

The idea that "bear arms" = "render military service" is absurd. Let's explore the source that you've misinterpreted:

Document 6, House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution, 17, 20 Aug. 1789Annals 1:749--52, 766--67


"""
"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

Mr. Gerry.--This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms.

....

Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.... This was actually done by Great Britain at the commencement of the late revolution. They used every means in their power to prevent the establishment of an effective militia to the eastward.

"""

The constructors were so intent on not violating peoples' rights that the amendment originally had "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms", but, Gerry, being rightfully paranoid about governments' misuse, reinterpretation, and misconstruction of law thought that phrase provided the opportunity for government to "invade the rights and liberties of the people". You are literally arguing the inverse of what Gerry said: "Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to [***]raise an army[***] upon their ruins". And, what better way to destroy the militia than to, as he put it, declare all people religiously disposed not to bear arms and then deprive them of that right, and thus make them incapable of forming a militia.


And, in case you still deny the obvious, let's continue from the source:

"""

Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent."

"""

You are arguing that Jackson really meant
"No one, religiously scrupulous of military service, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent."
but actually said, just, I guess, to confuse rational poeple
"No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.".

What an insane perverse interpretation you have.


"""

Mr. Stone inquired what the words "religiously scrupulous" had reference to: was it of bearing arms? If it was, it ought so to be expressed.

"""

Stone makes it clear there are at least two things being considered - "bearing arms" and something else, presumably "serving in a militia" - making it, once again, clear the two things are different.


This presents the question to me. How could you misconstrue a person who is paranoid of governments' almost impossible interpretation of "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms" to mean that those who wrote the 2nd amendment (Elbridge Gerry did not) actually intended a different meaning of "bear arms" (despite having the ability to write the meaning clearly)? And, I venture it is one or a mix of 1. you are a troll 2. you are heavily indoctrinated 3. you have a mental illness.

Absurd? Except that I've shown this is what the Founding Father said. So, you're calling the Founding Fathers absurd.

I can't believe you've just gone and posted half the damn document. What's the point. I provided the source.

Oh, oh, oh, now it's a DIFFERENT MEANING of "bear arms". Are you kidding me?

Wow, then you attack me.

See, I wrote in my first post that people would do everything they could to avoid seeing what is really there.

Attacking me is the obvious one, it's happened so many times. I've never had someone tell me that in:

""A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.""

That "bear arms" in the first clause means one thing and "bear arms" in the second clause means something completely different. I'd love to see a bunch of Constitutional scholars read that. They wouldn't stop laughing for ages.

Basically you're making shit up, and your attack on me is just typical bullshit from people who know nothing.

Not a single refutation by logic of any of my specific points. Please go away, you are apparently being unconstructive.

What logic?

1. you are a troll 2. you are heavily indoctrinated 3. you have a mental illness.

Logic?

No. Unless you can get through a post without insulting, I'm not going debate with you.

I have a choice, I make that choice all the time, and I put people on ignore quite a bit because I don't come on here to exchange insults like a child.

My god, somehow you went to the end of the post and skipped all the content just to read what you think is an insult? I've given you the opportunity to prove me wrong, but, as it stands, are are only proving my venturing about what you are.

Liberals are full of trolls that will purposefully misconstrue meaning to argue incessantly without responding to reason. You are fitting that description presently.

Yes, if you insult, I will skip everything you said.

Learn.

Then there is no reason for you to be here presently, so go away.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Absurd? Except that I've shown this is what the Founding Father said. So, you're calling the Founding Fathers absurd.

I can't believe you've just gone and posted half the damn document. What's the point. I provided the source.

Oh, oh, oh, now it's a DIFFERENT MEANING of "bear arms". Are you kidding me?

Wow, then you attack me.

See, I wrote in my first post that people would do everything they could to avoid seeing what is really there.

Attacking me is the obvious one, it's happened so many times. I've never had someone tell me that in:

""A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.""

That "bear arms" in the first clause means one thing and "bear arms" in the second clause means something completely different. I'd love to see a bunch of Constitutional scholars read that. They wouldn't stop laughing for ages.

Basically you're making shit up, and your attack on me is just typical bullshit from people who know nothing.

Not a single refutation by logic of any of my specific points. Please go away, you are apparently being unconstructive.

What logic?

1. you are a troll 2. you are heavily indoctrinated 3. you have a mental illness.

Logic?

No. Unless you can get through a post without insulting, I'm not going debate with you.

I have a choice, I make that choice all the time, and I put people on ignore quite a bit because I don't come on here to exchange insults like a child.

My god, somehow you went to the end of the post and skipped all the content just to read what you think is an insult? I've given you the opportunity to prove me wrong, but, as it stands, are are only proving my venturing about what you are.

Liberals are full of trolls that will purposefully misconstrue meaning to argue incessantly without responding to reason. You are fitting that description presently.

Yes, if you insult, I will skip everything you said.

Learn.

Then there is no reason for you to be here presently, so go away.

As if this forum works like that.

It's simple, you respond like an adult, or you don't get to debate with me.

Do you understand?

Other people are debating with me. Others aren't because they don't understand.

 

[capego]

Not a single refutation by logic of any of my specific points. Please go away, you are apparently being unconstructive.

What logic?

1. you are a troll 2. you are heavily indoctrinated 3. you have a mental illness.

Logic?

No. Unless you can get through a post without insulting, I'm not going debate with you.

I have a choice, I make that choice all the time, and I put people on ignore quite a bit because I don't come on here to exchange insults like a child.

My god, somehow you went to the end of the post and skipped all the content just to read what you think is an insult? I've given you the opportunity to prove me wrong, but, as it stands, are are only proving my venturing about what you are.

Liberals are full of trolls that will purposefully misconstrue meaning to argue incessantly without responding to reason. You are fitting that description presently.

Yes, if you insult, I will skip everything you said.

Learn.

Then there is no reason for you to be here presently, so go away.

As if this forum works like that.

It's simple, you respond like an adult, or you don't get to debate with me.

Do you understand?

Other people are debating with me. Others aren't because they don't understand.

Your thought is that this forum works by ignoring the OP and posting what you want?

My supposition that you might be one of three things based on your rather perverse interpretation of a discussion about the amendment is perfectly logical. It is your choice to cry about it to avoid my arguments.

And, I don't care to debate you. I only care if you actually have good contentions against my postings, which, it appears, you do not.

 

[frigidweirdo]

What logic?

Logic?

No. Unless you can get through a post without insulting, I'm not going debate with you.

I have a choice, I make that choice all the time, and I put people on ignore quite a bit because I don't come on here to exchange insults like a child.

My god, somehow you went to the end of the post and skipped all the content just to read what you think is an insult? I've given you the opportunity to prove me wrong, but, as it stands, are are only proving my venturing about what you are.

Liberals are full of trolls that will purposefully misconstrue meaning to argue incessantly without responding to reason. You are fitting that description presently.

Yes, if you insult, I will skip everything you said.

Learn.

Then there is no reason for you to be here presently, so go away.

As if this forum works like that.

It's simple, you respond like an adult, or you don't get to debate with me.

Do you understand?

Other people are debating with me. Others aren't because they don't understand.

Your thought is that this forum works by ignoring the OP and posting what you want?

My supposition that you might be one of three things based on your rather perverse interpretation of a discussion about the amendment is perfectly logical. It is your choice to cry about it to avoid my arguments.

And, I don't care to debate you. I only care if you actually have good contentions against my postings, which, it appears, you do not.

Am I talking about the meaning of the Second Amendment?

Yes, I am.

Your title is "2nd Amendment Unapologetic Meaning"

In your OP you gave your view of what you think the 2A means.

This invites other posters to present their own thoughts on whether you're right or wrong.

Now, let's clear this up.

1. you are a troll

Does this have anything to do with the OP?

2. you are heavily indoctrinated

Does this have anything to do with the OP?

3. you have a mental illness.

Does this have anything to do with the OP?

My thoughts are that no, attacking me has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE OP.

So, why do you do as you've suggested and STICK TO THE OP which is the Second Amendment and not Frigidweirdo.

Can you do that? Is it possible to stick to the OP?

 

[Auld Phart]

What logic?

Logic?

No. Unless you can get through a post without insulting, I'm not going debate with you.

I have a choice, I make that choice all the time, and I put people on ignore quite a bit because I don't come on here to exchange insults like a child.

My god, somehow you went to the end of the post and skipped all the content just to read what you think is an insult? I've given you the opportunity to prove me wrong, but, as it stands, are are only proving my venturing about what you are.

Liberals are full of trolls that will purposefully misconstrue meaning to argue incessantly without responding to reason. You are fitting that description presently.

Yes, if you insult, I will skip everything you said.

Learn.

Then there is no reason for you to be here presently, so go away.

As if this forum works like that.

It's simple, you respond like an adult, or you don't get to debate with me.

Do you understand?

Other people are debating with me. Others aren't because they don't understand.

Your thought is that this forum works by ignoring the OP and posting what you want?

My supposition that you might be one of three things based on your rather perverse interpretation of a discussion about the amendment is perfectly logical. It is your choice to cry about it to avoid my arguments.

And, I don't care to debate you. I only care if you actually have good contentions against my postings, which, it appears, you do not.

Just one problem with your rhetoric.

The opinions of the people you quote, Gerry, etc, failed to make it into the final version of the Second, making them moot.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The ‘argument’ for state militias ‘against’ the Federal government is devoid of merit absent the consent of the people – and seeks only to replace perceived ‘tyranny’ with actual tyranny.

You are arguing against the federalist papers on a point I only referenced from someone else. Do you not see that quote from the federalist papers or did you not read The Federalist numbers 28 by Hamilton and 46 by Madison?

The question comes to me of, why would someone have such selective ignorance in favor of the federal government? I think that is obvious.

I have found that the quotes in the Federalist Papers don't support any right wing meaning of the 2A.

Including the wrongheaded notion that the Second Amendment authorizes the overthrow of a lawfully elected government through force of arms because a minority of citizens incorrectly perceived the government to have become tyrannical, contrary to the will of the majority of the people.

Maybe you of the minority should not push for impeachment of a lawfully elected President?

But impeachment is in the Constitution. It's a legal avenue.

You call it making a case for impeachment
Most people call it a coup.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What logic?

Logic?

No. Unless you can get through a post without insulting, I'm not going debate with you.

I have a choice, I make that choice all the time, and I put people on ignore quite a bit because I don't come on here to exchange insults like a child.

My god, somehow you went to the end of the post and skipped all the content just to read what you think is an insult? I've given you the opportunity to prove me wrong, but, as it stands, are are only proving my venturing about what you are.

Liberals are full of trolls that will purposefully misconstrue meaning to argue incessantly without responding to reason. You are fitting that description presently.

Yes, if you insult, I will skip everything you said.

Learn.

Then there is no reason for you to be here presently, so go away.

As if this forum works like that.

It's simple, you respond like an adult, or you don't get to debate with me.

Do you understand?

Other people are debating with me. Others aren't because they don't understand.

Your thought is that this forum works by ignoring the OP and posting what you want?

My supposition that you might be one of three things based on your rather perverse interpretation of a discussion about the amendment is perfectly logical. It is your choice to cry about it to avoid my arguments.

And, I don't care to debate you. I only care if you actually have good contentions against my postings, which, it appears, you do not.

15 pages thus far in the thread and still nothing from the OP as to what constitutes ‘tyranny’ to the extent we can abandon the Constitution, the rule of law, and the will of the people and ‘take up arms’ against the Federal government.

Nothing from the OP as to how to garner consensus as to what constitutes ‘tyranny,’ consensus as to overthrowing a lawfully elected government reflecting the will of the majority of the people, and nothing from the OP as to the First Amendment right of the people change government through the political process, and that the Second Amendment doesn’t ‘trump’ that right.

Absent those facts and evidence the notion that the Second Amendment exists to ‘deter tyranny’ and overthrow a ‘tyrannical government’ is indeed wrong.

All the OP has is his subjective, errant opinion – predicated on ignorance and baseless contrivance.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

My god, somehow you went to the end of the post and skipped all the content just to read what you think is an insult? I've given you the opportunity to prove me wrong, but, as it stands, are are only proving my venturing about what you are.

Liberals are full of trolls that will purposefully misconstrue meaning to argue incessantly without responding to reason. You are fitting that description presently.

Yes, if you insult, I will skip everything you said.

Learn.

Then there is no reason for you to be here presently, so go away.

As if this forum works like that.

It's simple, you respond like an adult, or you don't get to debate with me.

Do you understand?

Other people are debating with me. Others aren't because they don't understand.

Your thought is that this forum works by ignoring the OP and posting what you want?

My supposition that you might be one of three things based on your rather perverse interpretation of a discussion about the amendment is perfectly logical. It is your choice to cry about it to avoid my arguments.

And, I don't care to debate you. I only care if you actually have good contentions against my postings, which, it appears, you do not.

15 pages thus far in the thread and still nothing from the OP as to what constitutes ‘tyranny’ to the extent we can abandon the Constitution, the rule of law, and the will of the people and ‘take up arms’ against the Federal government.

Nothing from the OP as to how to garner consensus as to what constitutes ‘tyranny,’ consensus as to overthrowing a lawfully elected government reflecting the will of the majority of the people, and nothing from the OP as to the First Amendment right of the people change government through the political process, and that the Second Amendment doesn’t ‘trump’ that right.

Absent those facts and evidence the notion that the Second Amendment exists to ‘deter tyranny’ and overthrow a ‘tyrannical government’ is indeed wrong.

All the OP has is his subjective, errant opinion – predicated on ignorance and baseless contrivance.

Who was the second amendment preserved for?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yes, if you insult, I will skip everything you said.

Learn.

Then there is no reason for you to be here presently, so go away.

As if this forum works like that.

It's simple, you respond like an adult, or you don't get to debate with me.

Do you understand?

Other people are debating with me. Others aren't because they don't understand.

Your thought is that this forum works by ignoring the OP and posting what you want?

My supposition that you might be one of three things based on your rather perverse interpretation of a discussion about the amendment is perfectly logical. It is your choice to cry about it to avoid my arguments.

And, I don't care to debate you. I only care if you actually have good contentions against my postings, which, it appears, you do not.

15 pages thus far in the thread and still nothing from the OP as to what constitutes ‘tyranny’ to the extent we can abandon the Constitution, the rule of law, and the will of the people and ‘take up arms’ against the Federal government.

Nothing from the OP as to how to garner consensus as to what constitutes ‘tyranny,’ consensus as to overthrowing a lawfully elected government reflecting the will of the majority of the people, and nothing from the OP as to the First Amendment right of the people change government through the political process, and that the Second Amendment doesn’t ‘trump’ that right.

Absent those facts and evidence the notion that the Second Amendment exists to ‘deter tyranny’ and overthrow a ‘tyrannical government’ is indeed wrong.

All the OP has is his subjective, errant opinion – predicated on ignorance and baseless contrivance.

Who was the second amendment preserved for?

The Federal government.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You are arguing against the federalist papers on a point I only referenced from someone else. Do you not see that quote from the federalist papers or did you not read The Federalist numbers 28 by Hamilton and 46 by Madison?

The question comes to me of, why would someone have such selective ignorance in favor of the federal government? I think that is obvious.

I have found that the quotes in the Federalist Papers don't support any right wing meaning of the 2A.

Including the wrongheaded notion that the Second Amendment authorizes the overthrow of a lawfully elected government through force of arms because a minority of citizens incorrectly perceived the government to have become tyrannical, contrary to the will of the majority of the people.

Maybe you of the minority should not push for impeachment of a lawfully elected President?

But impeachment is in the Constitution. It's a legal avenue.

You call it making a case for impeachment
Most people call it a coup.

If this were the case, then most people don't have a clue what's in the Constitution.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Then there is no reason for you to be here presently, so go away.

As if this forum works like that.

It's simple, you respond like an adult, or you don't get to debate with me.

Do you understand?

Other people are debating with me. Others aren't because they don't understand.

Your thought is that this forum works by ignoring the OP and posting what you want?

My supposition that you might be one of three things based on your rather perverse interpretation of a discussion about the amendment is perfectly logical. It is your choice to cry about it to avoid my arguments.

And, I don't care to debate you. I only care if you actually have good contentions against my postings, which, it appears, you do not.

15 pages thus far in the thread and still nothing from the OP as to what constitutes ‘tyranny’ to the extent we can abandon the Constitution, the rule of law, and the will of the people and ‘take up arms’ against the Federal government.

Nothing from the OP as to how to garner consensus as to what constitutes ‘tyranny,’ consensus as to overthrowing a lawfully elected government reflecting the will of the majority of the people, and nothing from the OP as to the First Amendment right of the people change government through the political process, and that the Second Amendment doesn’t ‘trump’ that right.

Absent those facts and evidence the notion that the Second Amendment exists to ‘deter tyranny’ and overthrow a ‘tyrannical government’ is indeed wrong.

All the OP has is his subjective, errant opinion – predicated on ignorance and baseless contrivance.

Who was the second amendment preserved for?

The Federal government.

The government needs rights protected?
lol

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I have found that the quotes in the Federalist Papers don't support any right wing meaning of the 2A.

Including the wrongheaded notion that the Second Amendment authorizes the overthrow of a lawfully elected government through force of arms because a minority of citizens incorrectly perceived the government to have become tyrannical, contrary to the will of the majority of the people.

Maybe you of the minority should not push for impeachment of a lawfully elected President?

But impeachment is in the Constitution. It's a legal avenue.

You call it making a case for impeachment
Most people call it a coup.

If this were the case, then most people don't have a clue what's in the Constitution.

Most people, that would be including you

 

[frigidweirdo]

As if this forum works like that.

It's simple, you respond like an adult, or you don't get to debate with me.

Do you understand?

Other people are debating with me. Others aren't because they don't understand.

Your thought is that this forum works by ignoring the OP and posting what you want?

My supposition that you might be one of three things based on your rather perverse interpretation of a discussion about the amendment is perfectly logical. It is your choice to cry about it to avoid my arguments.

And, I don't care to debate you. I only care if you actually have good contentions against my postings, which, it appears, you do not.

15 pages thus far in the thread and still nothing from the OP as to what constitutes ‘tyranny’ to the extent we can abandon the Constitution, the rule of law, and the will of the people and ‘take up arms’ against the Federal government.

Nothing from the OP as to how to garner consensus as to what constitutes ‘tyranny,’ consensus as to overthrowing a lawfully elected government reflecting the will of the majority of the people, and nothing from the OP as to the First Amendment right of the people change government through the political process, and that the Second Amendment doesn’t ‘trump’ that right.

Absent those facts and evidence the notion that the Second Amendment exists to ‘deter tyranny’ and overthrow a ‘tyrannical government’ is indeed wrong.

All the OP has is his subjective, errant opinion – predicated on ignorance and baseless contrivance.

Who was the second amendment preserved for?

The Federal government.

The government needs rights protected?
lol

No. Do I really need to point out the obvious here.

Sigh, I guess I do.

The Second Amendment is a LIMIT on the power of the Federal govt. It doesn't give individuals anything. It prevents the feds from doing things.

You asked who the SECOND AMENDMENT (not the right to keep and bear arms) was PRESERVED FOR. It was PRESERVED FOR the FEDERAL GOVT.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Including the wrongheaded notion that the Second Amendment authorizes the overthrow of a lawfully elected government through force of arms because a minority of citizens incorrectly perceived the government to have become tyrannical, contrary to the will of the majority of the people.

Maybe you of the minority should not push for impeachment of a lawfully elected President?

But impeachment is in the Constitution. It's a legal avenue.

You call it making a case for impeachment
Most people call it a coup.

If this were the case, then most people don't have a clue what's in the Constitution.

Most people, that would be including you

Really?

I know that impeachment is in the US Constitution.

Article 2, section 4 is about Presidential impeachment.

"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

See, I know the US Constitution.

Also article 1, Section 3

"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present."

 

[capego]

My god, somehow you went to the end of the post and skipped all the content just to read what you think is an insult? I've given you the opportunity to prove me wrong, but, as it stands, are are only proving my venturing about what you are.

Liberals are full of trolls that will purposefully misconstrue meaning to argue incessantly without responding to reason. You are fitting that description presently.

Yes, if you insult, I will skip everything you said.

Learn.

Then there is no reason for you to be here presently, so go away.

As if this forum works like that.

It's simple, you respond like an adult, or you don't get to debate with me.

Do you understand?

Other people are debating with me. Others aren't because they don't understand.

Your thought is that this forum works by ignoring the OP and posting what you want?

My supposition that you might be one of three things based on your rather perverse interpretation of a discussion about the amendment is perfectly logical. It is your choice to cry about it to avoid my arguments.

And, I don't care to debate you. I only care if you actually have good contentions against my postings, which, it appears, you do not.

Just one problem with your rhetoric.

The opinions of the people you quote, Gerry, etc, failed to make it into the final version of the Second, making them moot.

Not only that, but the discussion in the house only supports the spirit of the amendment being an unrestricted right to bear arms, without predication on a militia, for the purpose of fighting domestic tyranny.

 

[capego]

My god, somehow you went to the end of the post and skipped all the content just to read what you think is an insult? I've given you the opportunity to prove me wrong, but, as it stands, are are only proving my venturing about what you are.

Liberals are full of trolls that will purposefully misconstrue meaning to argue incessantly without responding to reason. You are fitting that description presently.

Yes, if you insult, I will skip everything you said.

Learn.

Then there is no reason for you to be here presently, so go away.

As if this forum works like that.

It's simple, you respond like an adult, or you don't get to debate with me.

Do you understand?

Other people are debating with me. Others aren't because they don't understand.

Your thought is that this forum works by ignoring the OP and posting what you want?

My supposition that you might be one of three things based on your rather perverse interpretation of a discussion about the amendment is perfectly logical. It is your choice to cry about it to avoid my arguments.

And, I don't care to debate you. I only care if you actually have good contentions against my postings, which, it appears, you do not.

15 pages thus far in the thread and still nothing from the OP as to what constitutes ‘tyranny’ to the extent we can abandon the Constitution, the rule of law, and the will of the people and ‘take up arms’ against the Federal government.

Nothing from the OP as to how to garner consensus as to what constitutes ‘tyranny,’ consensus as to overthrowing a lawfully elected government reflecting the will of the majority of the people, and nothing from the OP as to the First Amendment right of the people change government through the political process, and that the Second Amendment doesn’t ‘trump’ that right.

Absent those facts and evidence the notion that the Second Amendment exists to ‘deter tyranny’ and overthrow a ‘tyrannical government’ is indeed wrong.

All the OP has is his subjective, errant opinion – predicated on ignorance and baseless contrivance.

This is not a thread about what constitutes a tyranny. My particular or anyone's particular definition is irrelevant to the amendment in its restriction of government from infringement of the right, and your attempt to derail the conversation into such shows your malicious nature.

 

[capego]

My god, somehow you went to the end of the post and skipped all the content just to read what you think is an insult? I've given you the opportunity to prove me wrong, but, as it stands, are are only proving my venturing about what you are.

Liberals are full of trolls that will purposefully misconstrue meaning to argue incessantly without responding to reason. You are fitting that description presently.

Yes, if you insult, I will skip everything you said.

Learn.

Then there is no reason for you to be here presently, so go away.

As if this forum works like that.

It's simple, you respond like an adult, or you don't get to debate with me.

Do you understand?

Other people are debating with me. Others aren't because they don't understand.

Your thought is that this forum works by ignoring the OP and posting what you want?

My supposition that you might be one of three things based on your rather perverse interpretation of a discussion about the amendment is perfectly logical. It is your choice to cry about it to avoid my arguments.

And, I don't care to debate you. I only care if you actually have good contentions against my postings, which, it appears, you do not.

Just one problem with your rhetoric.

The opinions of the people you quote, Gerry, etc, failed to make it into the final version of the Second, making them moot.

PS, is it possible to edit my post to format the quotes to italics on (#108 /threads/2nd-amendment-unapologetic-meaning.694266/page-11#post-20290402)

I don't think people are familiar enough with triple quotes to differentiate my content from content I'm quoting.

 

[Auld Phart]

Yes, if you insult, I will skip everything you said.

Learn.

Then there is no reason for you to be here presently, so go away.

As if this forum works like that.

It's simple, you respond like an adult, or you don't get to debate with me.

Do you understand?

Other people are debating with me. Others aren't because they don't understand.

Your thought is that this forum works by ignoring the OP and posting what you want?

My supposition that you might be one of three things based on your rather perverse interpretation of a discussion about the amendment is perfectly logical. It is your choice to cry about it to avoid my arguments.

And, I don't care to debate you. I only care if you actually have good contentions against my postings, which, it appears, you do not.

Just one problem with your rhetoric.

The opinions of the people you quote, Gerry, etc, failed to make it into the final version of the Second, making them moot.

PS, is it possible to edit my post to format the quotes to italics on (#108 /threads/2nd-amendment-unapologetic-meaning.694266/page-11#post-20290402)

I don't think people are familiar enough with triple quotes to differentiate my content from content I'm quoting.

should be a button under the post, 'edit'.

Click it, highlight the area you want to change, click control i.

 

[capego]

Then there is no reason for you to be here presently, so go away.

As if this forum works like that.

It's simple, you respond like an adult, or you don't get to debate with me.

Do you understand?

Other people are debating with me. Others aren't because they don't understand.

Your thought is that this forum works by ignoring the OP and posting what you want?

My supposition that you might be one of three things based on your rather perverse interpretation of a discussion about the amendment is perfectly logical. It is your choice to cry about it to avoid my arguments.

And, I don't care to debate you. I only care if you actually have good contentions against my postings, which, it appears, you do not.

Just one problem with your rhetoric.

The opinions of the people you quote, Gerry, etc, failed to make it into the final version of the Second, making them moot.

PS, is it possible to edit my post to format the quotes to italics on (#108 /threads/2nd-amendment-unapologetic-meaning.694266/page-11#post-20290402)

I don't think people are familiar enough with triple quotes to differentiate my content from content I'm quoting.

should be a button under the post, 'edit'.

Click it, highlight the area you want to change, click control i.

Unfortunately, it appears after a period of time the edit option goes away

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yes, if you insult, I will skip everything you said.

Learn.

Then there is no reason for you to be here presently, so go away.

As if this forum works like that.

It's simple, you respond like an adult, or you don't get to debate with me.

Do you understand?

Other people are debating with me. Others aren't because they don't understand.

Your thought is that this forum works by ignoring the OP and posting what you want?

My supposition that you might be one of three things based on your rather perverse interpretation of a discussion about the amendment is perfectly logical. It is your choice to cry about it to avoid my arguments.

And, I don't care to debate you. I only care if you actually have good contentions against my postings, which, it appears, you do not.

Just one problem with your rhetoric.

The opinions of the people you quote, Gerry, etc, failed to make it into the final version of the Second, making them moot.

Not only that, but the discussion in the house only supports the spirit of the amendment being an unrestricted right to bear arms, without predication on a militia, for the purpose of fighting domestic tyranny.

Had you read my points, you might have noticed that I didn't say anything about militia duty being a condition of the RKBA.

In fact it wouldn't make sense for that to happen.

But I'm used to people fighting what they want me to have written and not what I actually wrote. It happens every time.