Do you notice how RWs never establish a line on their 2nd amendment rights?

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

If the Amendment stated:

"Daniel Palos, being a public danger to freedom due to his being a goose-stepping pinko commie ass hat who may try to start a communist revolution in America, thus he and his commie cohorts being shot down in the streets being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It would still mean the federal government (and now the state/local gov. via 14th Amendment) shall not infringe on a person's right to keep and bear (carry) arms.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

"The tooth fairy, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

What did that change?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

"Co-ed naked mutual public masturbation, being necessary for the corruption of today's youth, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

What does this amendment do? Limits the government from infringing on the right of the people to have and carry guns.

We can do this all day.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

"Beer pong, being necessary for the much-desired drunkenness of a party frat, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

That's still a limit on federal government.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

"A well-groomed ****, being necessary for Colonel Angus (cunnilingus), the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Who has the right? The **** or the people? What shall not be infringed? Colonel Angus or the right to bear arms?


Under the commie reading of the amendment:

Daniel is a ****, so his right to bear arms shall not be infringed, as long as he is well groomed.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

"A well-groomed ****, being necessary for Colonel Angus (cunnilingus), the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Who has the right? The **** or the people? What shall not be infringed? Colonel Angus or the right to bear arms?


Under the commie reading of the amendment:

Daniel is a ****, so his right to bear arms shall not be infringed, as long as he is well groomed.

Under the commie reading of the amendment

I couldn't stand that commie Scalia.

 

[danielpalos]

10USC246 is federal law. The right is willing to indulge the moral turpitude of appealing to ignorance of the law. And, claim we need Ten Commandments in the courtroom.

Son, do you even know what "moral turpitude" means? Do you even know what the "appeal to ignorance" fallacy is and how to identify it?

You are rattling off these buzzwords while apparently not understanding their meaning, based on the way you are improperly using them.

Do you even know the purpose of 10 U.S.C. 246?

Here is the TEXT of 10 U.S.C. 246:

§246. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

No matter what, all are militia of THE UNITED STATES.

AND, no matter what, that does not change the 2nd Amendment.

A (not the) A well regulated militia...and a partrige in a pear tree, because it still has no up or down restriction on the second party of the amendment:

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


Are you arguing that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is no longer protected because there is a United States militia (note, not a State militia)? No, I think you have no clue what you are arguing.

You have no point. You have no arguments. You are parroting bullshit you heard from some other ass clown who has no point or argument.

What is the militia (not the codified version you cite in the U.S. Code)?

The People are the Militia; you are either well regulated and Necessary to the security of a free State or you are not. It really is that simple, except to the right wing.

 

[sakinago]

yes, dear. Well regulated militia are necessary, the unorganized militia are not. Only one subset of the militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

What the ****? What is "well regulated" you motherfucking idiot. It has NOTHING to do with organization. You are making shit up AGAIN.

Nobody (most importantly the SCOTUS) buys your stupid argument.

Give it up. You are a stupid ****.

You are simply clueless and Causeless.

Only one subset of the militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

It is not, gun lovers with no clue and no Cause.

Oh god this argument again...So your saying in the context of the BOR, which were all negative rights imposed onto the government. And the context of the times, where the PEOPLE, had to stand up to the STATE, that was trying to DISARM them. So in that context, you’re trying to claim that the founders put in an amendment to insure the right of the government to keep and bear arms, and that the right of the government to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?

Not to mention the militia is a completely different animal than the government controlled and ran standing army...which the founder were very very wary against, and actually originally banned during peace time. The militia was always locally sourced and CIVILIAN controlled, not controlled by the state. And when they did institute a standing army, they emphasized the importance of the militia as a counterbalance to the fed ran standing army, and the individual state ran national guards.

Anti-gun Ivy League, constitional law professors agree that the 2nd amendment is very clear, and it’s a right to and for the people, and the reason why the militia is necassary is to counterbalance the state. So government does not have a monopoly of force.

You don't know what you are talking about.

Well regulated militia of the People, 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 are the Militia. Well regulated militia of the People are necessary to the security of a free State; the unorganized miltia of the people, is not necessary to the security of a free State.

Wow you missed the point there by a mile. During the time of the reveloution it became clear that while militia may be just fine against a band of robbers on the road, or a tribe of raiding Indians, they were terrible when it came to fighting against an organized military. So Gen Washington called for the formation of the continental army, which was much more effective...So when the const/BOR was written after the revolution, if the government could keep it citizens more safe using a standing army (the were very worried about a British re-invasion, that did happen in 1812), why did they not just use a standing army instead?

Why were they so afraid of a standing army? Because a standing army is a threat to a free nation. All it would take is one general with the loyalty of half the army, or even a an eight of the army that decides to march on Washington/Philadelphia, and boom, meet your new king (The NATO ally, modern country of turkey just had a coup attempt that was damn near successful) . Or more likely, what happens when the citizens are upset at a law the government made, and the government uses the army to shut the citizens up (we see this ALL the time).

Read the founders words, an unarmed people is not a free people. I don’t understand why people try to insert what they THINK the founders meant by the 2nd when they can just read the founders own freaking words.

Here’s TJ
"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." --Cesare Beccaria, On Crimes and Punishment --Thomas Jefferson in Commonplace Book

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; ...that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

There’s much much more than this from TJ. I can go on with quotes from Washington, Madison, Paine, Henry, if you wish. But Thomas Jefferson was one of the main authors of the BOR and constitution that was ratified by all the founding fathers (the 2nd amendment didn’t have a lot of debate like all the others).

The 2nd is not about protection of the people, it’s the people protecting themselves, mainly from government, and also foreign entities and whatever else.

 

[sakinago]

10USC246 is federal law. The right is willing to indulge the moral turpitude of appealing to ignorance of the law. And, claim we need Ten Commandments in the courtroom.

Son, do you even know what "moral turpitude" means? Do you even know what the "appeal to ignorance" fallacy is and how to identify it?

You are rattling off these buzzwords while apparently not understanding their meaning, based on the way you are improperly using them.

Do you even know the purpose of 10 U.S.C. 246?

Here is the TEXT of 10 U.S.C. 246:

§246. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

No matter what, all are militia of THE UNITED STATES.

AND, no matter what, that does not change the 2nd Amendment.

A (not the) A well regulated militia...and a partrige in a pear tree, because it still has no up or down restriction on the second party of the amendment:

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


Are you arguing that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is no longer protected because there is a United States militia (note, not a State militia)? No, I think you have no clue what you are arguing.

You have no point. You have no arguments. You are parroting bullshit you heard from some other ass clown who has no point or argument.

What is the militia (not the codified version you cite in the U.S. Code)?

The People are the Militia; you are either well regulated and Necessary to the security of a free State or you are not. It really is that simple, except to the right wing.

Dude again, read the founders own words, stop doing you’re own crazy mental gymnastics to try to squeeze in your own alternate reality. I just gave you some quotes, if you want I’ll give you even more.

And here’s an anti-gun constitutional law professor who agrees with me that if you want gun control you have to repeal the 2nd amendment. I disagree with this professor on everything else, including his characterization that the founders included dred Scott because they were racist (he was clearly trying to misled other that the founder wrote a racist constitution, which came later and it was a ruling that was not constitutional) so you can’t blame the constitution for people not adhering to it.
Why It's Time to Repeal the Second Amendment

Was slavery wrong, YES, did some of the founders own slaves including GW, and TJ, YES. But they bought their slaves when they were young men trying to get wealthy (like all Britain’s or colonist did who were trying to get wealthy), and had a change of heart and became abolitionist. Abolinitionist who would not have won the war without the movers and shakers of the south, who were slave owners sadly. TJ went to court to try to release his slaves 3 times and lost (if the slave owners let a southern founder win, it would be very bad for slavery), and GW found a loophole and released his slaves at death. TJ, when writing the DOI, fought tooth and nail to change “life, liberty, and property,” to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” just so slavery did not have the foot to stand on “well I have a right to property,” when that argument would later come. I hate that we had slavery, and hate to put up with it, and had a very bloody war to finally end it...but we wouldn’t be here without it. It’s sad that such a small percentage of powerful men made it that way, which is why we need a limited government that’s main goal is to insure our liberties. Big governments do not do that.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

10USC246 is federal law. The right is willing to indulge the moral turpitude of appealing to ignorance of the law. And, claim we need Ten Commandments in the courtroom.

Son, do you even know what "moral turpitude" means? Do you even know what the "appeal to ignorance" fallacy is and how to identify it?

You are rattling off these buzzwords while apparently not understanding their meaning, based on the way you are improperly using them.

Do you even know the purpose of 10 U.S.C. 246?

Here is the TEXT of 10 U.S.C. 246:

§246. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

No matter what, all are militia of THE UNITED STATES.

AND, no matter what, that does not change the 2nd Amendment.

A (not the) A well regulated militia...and a partrige in a pear tree, because it still has no up or down restriction on the second party of the amendment:

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


Are you arguing that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is no longer protected because there is a United States militia (note, not a State militia)? No, I think you have no clue what you are arguing.

You have no point. You have no arguments. You are parroting bullshit you heard from some other ass clown who has no point or argument.

What is the militia (not the codified version you cite in the U.S. Code)?

The People are the Militia; you are either well regulated and Necessary to the security of a free State or you are not. It really is that simple, except to the right wing.

Dude again, read the founders own words, stop doing you’re own crazy mental gymnastics to try to squeeze in your own alternate reality. I just gave you some quotes, if you want I’ll give you even more.

And here’s an anti-gun constitutional law professor who agrees with me that if you want gun control you have to repeal the 2nd amendment. I disagree with this professor on everything else, including his characterization that the founders included dred Scott because they were racist (he was clearly trying to misled other that the founder wrote a racist constitution, which came later and it was a ruling that was not constitutional) so you can’t blame the constitution for people not adhering to it.
Why It's Time to Repeal the Second Amendment

Was slavery wrong, YES, did some of the founders own slaves including GW, and TJ, YES. But they bought their slaves when they were young men trying to get wealthy (like all Britain’s or colonist did who were trying to get wealthy), and had a change of heart and became abolitionist. Abolinitionist who would not have won the war without the movers and shakers of the south, who were slave owners sadly. TJ went to court to try to release his slaves 3 times and lost (if the slave owners let a southern founder win, it would be very bad for slavery), and GW found a loophole and released his slaves at death. TJ, when writing the DOI, fought tooth and nail to change “life, liberty, and property,” to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” just so slavery did not have the foot to stand on “well I have a right to property,” when that argument would later come. I hate that we had slavery, and hate to put up with it, and had a very bloody war to finally end it...but we wouldn’t be here without it. It’s sad that such a small percentage of powerful men made it that way, which is why we need a limited government that’s main goal is to insure our liberties. Big governments do not do that.

10USC246 is federal law. The right is willing to indulge the moral turpitude of appealing to ignorance of the law. And, claim we need Ten Commandments in the courtroom.

Son, do you even know what "moral turpitude" means? Do you even know what the "appeal to ignorance" fallacy is and how to identify it?

You are rattling off these buzzwords while apparently not understanding their meaning, based on the way you are improperly using them.

Do you even know the purpose of 10 U.S.C. 246?

Here is the TEXT of 10 U.S.C. 246:

§246. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

No matter what, all are militia of THE UNITED STATES.

AND, no matter what, that does not change the 2nd Amendment.

A (not the) A well regulated militia...and a partrige in a pear tree, because it still has no up or down restriction on the second party of the amendment:

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


Are you arguing that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is no longer protected because there is a United States militia (note, not a State militia)? No, I think you have no clue what you are arguing.

You have no point. You have no arguments. You are parroting bullshit you heard from some other ass clown who has no point or argument.

What is the militia (not the codified version you cite in the U.S. Code)?

The People are the Militia; you are either well regulated and Necessary to the security of a free State or you are not. It really is that simple, except to the right wing.

Dude again, read the founders own words, stop doing you’re own crazy mental gymnastics to try to squeeze in your own alternate reality. I just gave you some quotes, if you want I’ll give you even more.

And here’s an anti-gun constitutional law professor who agrees with me that if you want gun control you have to repeal the 2nd amendment. I disagree with this professor on everything else, including his characterization that the founders included dred Scott because they were racist (he was clearly trying to misled other that the founder wrote a racist constitution, which came later and it was a ruling that was not constitutional) so you can’t blame the constitution for people not adhering to it.
Why It's Time to Repeal the Second Amendment

Was slavery wrong, YES, did some of the founders own slaves including GW, and TJ, YES. But they bought their slaves when they were young men trying to get wealthy (like all Britain’s or colonist did who were trying to get wealthy), and had a change of heart and became abolitionist. Abolinitionist who would not have won the war without the movers and shakers of the south, who were slave owners sadly. TJ went to court to try to release his slaves 3 times and lost (if the slave owners let a southern founder win, it would be very bad for slavery), and GW found a loophole and released his slaves at death. TJ, when writing the DOI, fought tooth and nail to change “life, liberty, and property,” to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” just so slavery did not have the foot to stand on “well I have a right to property,” when that argument would later come. I hate that we had slavery, and hate to put up with it, and had a very bloody war to finally end it...but we wouldn’t be here without it. It’s sad that such a small percentage of powerful men made it that way, which is why we need a limited government that’s main goal is to insure our liberties. Big governments do not do that.

I already loaded his cum-stained ass with quotes, examples, scenarios, etc. i have taken his shitty logic and applied it 10 ways from Sunday and proved over and over that his reasoning is as foundationally sound as pancake train bridge. It does not help. He cannot see and accept reason.

Daniel and these other commies are convinced that their retarded, twisted, mixed, confused "arguments" are correct because they do not understand the concepts and know nothing of history. Somebody these commies respect told them what to argue, and they are parroting it like it is the gospel, without real understanding.

It doesn't matter how well you beat their asses with logic. They will still argue that you get no guns unless the federal government officially issues you a militia card, which they also insist does not even exist and cannot exist outside the national guard. No matter what, they will twist their arguments to = no guns for you.

These are the people we are defending our freedoms agaist. Not terrorists. These commies don't care how wrong they are. They are going to get our guns and promptly overthrow our constitutional government with their communist revolution, if it hairlips the ******* governor, by God, they will get them. They don't give a shit.

We shouldn't give a shit either. There is only one solution to this commie problem that has been festering for 100+ years.

A final solution.

Get as many guns as you can. Be ready to convert them to full auto when the fighting breaks out. Be ready to swim in blood and guts when it comes time to stop these commies. It is not a question of if but when they start their revolution.

I am both sad that it must come to this violent head, and also happy, because it is exhausting trying to reason with the unreasonable. It would be easier (and much more satisfying) to just fight it out. We will not be the ones starting the bloodshed, but bet your ass I will relesh in painting the walls with commie brains.

In the mean time, keep fighting for no regulation. Force repeal at every turn. Get us back to equal power and armement to that of the military. Pushing the harder in the opposite direction is the only way we maintain the status quo. We are either losing rights or regaining them. There is no standing still.

Being ready to go scorched-earth war and pushing for repeal of all infringments is the onlyway we preserve all liberty and defeat this commie counter-resurgence.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I couldn't stand that commie Scalia

You don't even know what the **** Scalia wrote, do you?


More dumbfucks failing to make a sound argument.

Let's just have a **** war already. I am tired of one-sided arguing with you freedom-hating kuunts.

 

[danielpalos]

yes, dear. Well regulated militia are necessary, the unorganized militia are not. Only one subset of the militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

What the ****? What is "well regulated" you motherfucking idiot. It has NOTHING to do with organization. You are making shit up AGAIN.

Nobody (most importantly the SCOTUS) buys your stupid argument.

Give it up. You are a stupid ****.

You are simply clueless and Causeless.

Only one subset of the militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

It is not, gun lovers with no clue and no Cause.

Oh god this argument again...So your saying in the context of the BOR, which were all negative rights imposed onto the government. And the context of the times, where the PEOPLE, had to stand up to the STATE, that was trying to DISARM them. So in that context, you’re trying to claim that the founders put in an amendment to insure the right of the government to keep and bear arms, and that the right of the government to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?

Not to mention the militia is a completely different animal than the government controlled and ran standing army...which the founder were very very wary against, and actually originally banned during peace time. The militia was always locally sourced and CIVILIAN controlled, not controlled by the state. And when they did institute a standing army, they emphasized the importance of the militia as a counterbalance to the fed ran standing army, and the individual state ran national guards.

Anti-gun Ivy League, constitional law professors agree that the 2nd amendment is very clear, and it’s a right to and for the people, and the reason why the militia is necassary is to counterbalance the state. So government does not have a monopoly of force.

You don't know what you are talking about.

Well regulated militia of the People, 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 are the Militia. Well regulated militia of the People are necessary to the security of a free State; the unorganized miltia of the people, is not necessary to the security of a free State.

Wow you missed the point there by a mile. During the time of the reveloution it became clear that while militia may be just fine against a band of robbers on the road, or a tribe of raiding Indians, they were terrible when it came to fighting against an organized military. So Gen Washington called for the formation of the continental army, which was much more effective...So when the const/BOR was written after the revolution, if the government could keep it citizens more safe using a standing army (the were very worried about a British re-invasion, that did happen in 1812), why did they not just use a standing army instead?

Why were they so afraid of a standing army? Because a standing army is a threat to a free nation. All it would take is one general with the loyalty of half the army, or even a an eight of the army that decides to march on Washington/Philadelphia, and boom, meet your new king (The NATO ally, modern country of turkey just had a coup attempt that was damn near successful) . Or more likely, what happens when the citizens are upset at a law the government made, and the government uses the army to shut the citizens up (we see this ALL the time).

Read the founders words, an unarmed people is not a free people. I don’t understand why people try to insert what they THINK the founders meant by the 2nd when they can just read the founders own freaking words.

Here’s TJ
"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." --Cesare Beccaria, On Crimes and Punishment --Thomas Jefferson in Commonplace Book

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; ...that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

There’s much much more than this from TJ. I can go on with quotes from Washington, Madison, Paine, Henry, if you wish. But Thomas Jefferson was one of the main authors of the BOR and constitution that was ratified by all the founding fathers (the 2nd amendment didn’t have a lot of debate like all the others).

The 2nd is not about protection of the people, it’s the people protecting themselves, mainly from government, and also foreign entities and whatever else.

I didn't miss any points. You don't have any. The people are the militia. You are either, well regulated or not.

Natural rights are covered by State Constitutions, not our federal Constitution.

 

[sakinago]

What the ****? What is "well regulated" you motherfucking idiot. It has NOTHING to do with organization. You are making shit up AGAIN.

Nobody (most importantly the SCOTUS) buys your stupid argument.

Give it up. You are a stupid ****.

You are simply clueless and Causeless.

Only one subset of the militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

It is not, gun lovers with no clue and no Cause.

Oh god this argument again...So your saying in the context of the BOR, which were all negative rights imposed onto the government. And the context of the times, where the PEOPLE, had to stand up to the STATE, that was trying to DISARM them. So in that context, you’re trying to claim that the founders put in an amendment to insure the right of the government to keep and bear arms, and that the right of the government to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?

Not to mention the militia is a completely different animal than the government controlled and ran standing army...which the founder were very very wary against, and actually originally banned during peace time. The militia was always locally sourced and CIVILIAN controlled, not controlled by the state. And when they did institute a standing army, they emphasized the importance of the militia as a counterbalance to the fed ran standing army, and the individual state ran national guards.

Anti-gun Ivy League, constitional law professors agree that the 2nd amendment is very clear, and it’s a right to and for the people, and the reason why the militia is necassary is to counterbalance the state. So government does not have a monopoly of force.

You don't know what you are talking about.

Well regulated militia of the People, 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 are the Militia. Well regulated militia of the People are necessary to the security of a free State; the unorganized miltia of the people, is not necessary to the security of a free State.

Wow you missed the point there by a mile. During the time of the reveloution it became clear that while militia may be just fine against a band of robbers on the road, or a tribe of raiding Indians, they were terrible when it came to fighting against an organized military. So Gen Washington called for the formation of the continental army, which was much more effective...So when the const/BOR was written after the revolution, if the government could keep it citizens more safe using a standing army (the were very worried about a British re-invasion, that did happen in 1812), why did they not just use a standing army instead?

Why were they so afraid of a standing army? Because a standing army is a threat to a free nation. All it would take is one general with the loyalty of half the army, or even a an eight of the army that decides to march on Washington/Philadelphia, and boom, meet your new king (The NATO ally, modern country of turkey just had a coup attempt that was damn near successful) . Or more likely, what happens when the citizens are upset at a law the government made, and the government uses the army to shut the citizens up (we see this ALL the time).

Read the founders words, an unarmed people is not a free people. I don’t understand why people try to insert what they THINK the founders meant by the 2nd when they can just read the founders own freaking words.

Here’s TJ
"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." --Cesare Beccaria, On Crimes and Punishment --Thomas Jefferson in Commonplace Book

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; ...that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

There’s much much more than this from TJ. I can go on with quotes from Washington, Madison, Paine, Henry, if you wish. But Thomas Jefferson was one of the main authors of the BOR and constitution that was ratified by all the founding fathers (the 2nd amendment didn’t have a lot of debate like all the others).

The 2nd is not about protection of the people, it’s the people protecting themselves, mainly from government, and also foreign entities and whatever else.

I didn't miss any points. You don't have any. The people are the militia. You are either, well regulated or not.

Natural rights are covered by State Constitutions, not our federal Constitution.

What the hell are you talking about??? Clearly you have ZERO clue. Didn’t realize BOR and DOI were state documents, not fed.

Why was the militia necessary for free society? Not for protection, state ran military is much better at that. It’s a civilian ran and controlled military, and their whole point was to stand up to the government if need be...which is why the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

So if well regulated was the objective, they would have went with a government ran standing army vs a civilian militia. A standing army is much more effective at repelling enemy forces, than a bunch of locally sourced farmers, who voted farmer bowman as their general, and you have hundreds of the these small groups, with their own leader, all controlled by the civilians in their respective groups.

 

[danielpalos]

You are simply clueless and Causeless.

Only one subset of the militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

It is not, gun lovers with no clue and no Cause.

Oh god this argument again...So your saying in the context of the BOR, which were all negative rights imposed onto the government. And the context of the times, where the PEOPLE, had to stand up to the STATE, that was trying to DISARM them. So in that context, you’re trying to claim that the founders put in an amendment to insure the right of the government to keep and bear arms, and that the right of the government to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?

Not to mention the militia is a completely different animal than the government controlled and ran standing army...which the founder were very very wary against, and actually originally banned during peace time. The militia was always locally sourced and CIVILIAN controlled, not controlled by the state. And when they did institute a standing army, they emphasized the importance of the militia as a counterbalance to the fed ran standing army, and the individual state ran national guards.

Anti-gun Ivy League, constitional law professors agree that the 2nd amendment is very clear, and it’s a right to and for the people, and the reason why the militia is necassary is to counterbalance the state. So government does not have a monopoly of force.

You don't know what you are talking about.

Well regulated militia of the People, 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 are the Militia. Well regulated militia of the People are necessary to the security of a free State; the unorganized miltia of the people, is not necessary to the security of a free State.

Wow you missed the point there by a mile. During the time of the reveloution it became clear that while militia may be just fine against a band of robbers on the road, or a tribe of raiding Indians, they were terrible when it came to fighting against an organized military. So Gen Washington called for the formation of the continental army, which was much more effective...So when the const/BOR was written after the revolution, if the government could keep it citizens more safe using a standing army (the were very worried about a British re-invasion, that did happen in 1812), why did they not just use a standing army instead?

Why were they so afraid of a standing army? Because a standing army is a threat to a free nation. All it would take is one general with the loyalty of half the army, or even a an eight of the army that decides to march on Washington/Philadelphia, and boom, meet your new king (The NATO ally, modern country of turkey just had a coup attempt that was damn near successful) . Or more likely, what happens when the citizens are upset at a law the government made, and the government uses the army to shut the citizens up (we see this ALL the time).

Read the founders words, an unarmed people is not a free people. I don’t understand why people try to insert what they THINK the founders meant by the 2nd when they can just read the founders own freaking words.

Here’s TJ
"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." --Cesare Beccaria, On Crimes and Punishment --Thomas Jefferson in Commonplace Book

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; ...that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

There’s much much more than this from TJ. I can go on with quotes from Washington, Madison, Paine, Henry, if you wish. But Thomas Jefferson was one of the main authors of the BOR and constitution that was ratified by all the founding fathers (the 2nd amendment didn’t have a lot of debate like all the others).

The 2nd is not about protection of the people, it’s the people protecting themselves, mainly from government, and also foreign entities and whatever else.

I didn't miss any points. You don't have any. The people are the militia. You are either, well regulated or not.

Natural rights are covered by State Constitutions, not our federal Constitution.

What the hell are you talking about??? Clearly you have ZERO clue. Didn’t realize BOR and DOI were state documents, not fed.

Why was the militia necessary for free society? Not for protection, state ran military is much better at that. It’s a civilian ran and controlled military, and their whole point was to stand up to the government if need be...which is why the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

So if well regulated was the objective, they would have went with a government ran standing army vs a civilian militia. A standing army is much more effective at repelling enemy forces, than a bunch of locally sourced farmers, who voted farmer bowman as their general, and you have hundreds of the these small groups, with their own leader, all controlled by the civilians in their respective groups.

Nothing but diversion?

The people are the militia. You are either, well regulated or not.

Natural rights are covered by State Constitutions, not our federal Constitution. Please cite them.

 

[sakinago]

Oh god this argument again...So your saying in the context of the BOR, which were all negative rights imposed onto the government. And the context of the times, where the PEOPLE, had to stand up to the STATE, that was trying to DISARM them. So in that context, you’re trying to claim that the founders put in an amendment to insure the right of the government to keep and bear arms, and that the right of the government to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?

Not to mention the militia is a completely different animal than the government controlled and ran standing army...which the founder were very very wary against, and actually originally banned during peace time. The militia was always locally sourced and CIVILIAN controlled, not controlled by the state. And when they did institute a standing army, they emphasized the importance of the militia as a counterbalance to the fed ran standing army, and the individual state ran national guards.

Anti-gun Ivy League, constitional law professors agree that the 2nd amendment is very clear, and it’s a right to and for the people, and the reason why the militia is necassary is to counterbalance the state. So government does not have a monopoly of force.

You don't know what you are talking about.

Well regulated militia of the People, 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 are the Militia. Well regulated militia of the People are necessary to the security of a free State; the unorganized miltia of the people, is not necessary to the security of a free State.

Wow you missed the point there by a mile. During the time of the reveloution it became clear that while militia may be just fine against a band of robbers on the road, or a tribe of raiding Indians, they were terrible when it came to fighting against an organized military. So Gen Washington called for the formation of the continental army, which was much more effective...So when the const/BOR was written after the revolution, if the government could keep it citizens more safe using a standing army (the were very worried about a British re-invasion, that did happen in 1812), why did they not just use a standing army instead?

Why were they so afraid of a standing army? Because a standing army is a threat to a free nation. All it would take is one general with the loyalty of half the army, or even a an eight of the army that decides to march on Washington/Philadelphia, and boom, meet your new king (The NATO ally, modern country of turkey just had a coup attempt that was damn near successful) . Or more likely, what happens when the citizens are upset at a law the government made, and the government uses the army to shut the citizens up (we see this ALL the time).

Read the founders words, an unarmed people is not a free people. I don’t understand why people try to insert what they THINK the founders meant by the 2nd when they can just read the founders own freaking words.

Here’s TJ
"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." --Cesare Beccaria, On Crimes and Punishment --Thomas Jefferson in Commonplace Book

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; ...that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

There’s much much more than this from TJ. I can go on with quotes from Washington, Madison, Paine, Henry, if you wish. But Thomas Jefferson was one of the main authors of the BOR and constitution that was ratified by all the founding fathers (the 2nd amendment didn’t have a lot of debate like all the others).

The 2nd is not about protection of the people, it’s the people protecting themselves, mainly from government, and also foreign entities and whatever else.

I didn't miss any points. You don't have any. The people are the militia. You are either, well regulated or not.

Natural rights are covered by State Constitutions, not our federal Constitution.

What the hell are you talking about??? Clearly you have ZERO clue. Didn’t realize BOR and DOI were state documents, not fed.

Why was the militia necessary for free society? Not for protection, state ran military is much better at that. It’s a civilian ran and controlled military, and their whole point was to stand up to the government if need be...which is why the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

So if well regulated was the objective, they would have went with a government ran standing army vs a civilian militia. A standing army is much more effective at repelling enemy forces, than a bunch of locally sourced farmers, who voted farmer bowman as their general, and you have hundreds of the these small groups, with their own leader, all controlled by the civilians in their respective groups.

Nothing but diversion?

The people are the militia. You are either, well regulated or not.

Natural rights are covered by State Constitutions, not our federal Constitution. Please cite them.

You don’t know what a natural rights are. The whole point of a natural right is that it cannot be granted or given through laws of men, they are natural...Like the ability to speak, the ability to defend oneself, the right to privacy, property, etc. They can be ensured by placing limitations and restrictions onto the government, like the bill of rights does. You seem to just barf words when you don’t have a retort

 

[danielpalos]

You don't know what you are talking about.

Well regulated militia of the People, 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 are the Militia. Well regulated militia of the People are necessary to the security of a free State; the unorganized miltia of the people, is not necessary to the security of a free State.

Wow you missed the point there by a mile. During the time of the reveloution it became clear that while militia may be just fine against a band of robbers on the road, or a tribe of raiding Indians, they were terrible when it came to fighting against an organized military. So Gen Washington called for the formation of the continental army, which was much more effective...So when the const/BOR was written after the revolution, if the government could keep it citizens more safe using a standing army (the were very worried about a British re-invasion, that did happen in 1812), why did they not just use a standing army instead?

Why were they so afraid of a standing army? Because a standing army is a threat to a free nation. All it would take is one general with the loyalty of half the army, or even a an eight of the army that decides to march on Washington/Philadelphia, and boom, meet your new king (The NATO ally, modern country of turkey just had a coup attempt that was damn near successful) . Or more likely, what happens when the citizens are upset at a law the government made, and the government uses the army to shut the citizens up (we see this ALL the time).

Read the founders words, an unarmed people is not a free people. I don’t understand why people try to insert what they THINK the founders meant by the 2nd when they can just read the founders own freaking words.

Here’s TJ
"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." --Cesare Beccaria, On Crimes and Punishment --Thomas Jefferson in Commonplace Book

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; ...that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

There’s much much more than this from TJ. I can go on with quotes from Washington, Madison, Paine, Henry, if you wish. But Thomas Jefferson was one of the main authors of the BOR and constitution that was ratified by all the founding fathers (the 2nd amendment didn’t have a lot of debate like all the others).

The 2nd is not about protection of the people, it’s the people protecting themselves, mainly from government, and also foreign entities and whatever else.

I didn't miss any points. You don't have any. The people are the militia. You are either, well regulated or not.

Natural rights are covered by State Constitutions, not our federal Constitution.

What the hell are you talking about??? Clearly you have ZERO clue. Didn’t realize BOR and DOI were state documents, not fed.

Why was the militia necessary for free society? Not for protection, state ran military is much better at that. It’s a civilian ran and controlled military, and their whole point was to stand up to the government if need be...which is why the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

So if well regulated was the objective, they would have went with a government ran standing army vs a civilian militia. A standing army is much more effective at repelling enemy forces, than a bunch of locally sourced farmers, who voted farmer bowman as their general, and you have hundreds of the these small groups, with their own leader, all controlled by the civilians in their respective groups.

Nothing but diversion?

The people are the militia. You are either, well regulated or not.

Natural rights are covered by State Constitutions, not our federal Constitution. Please cite them.

You don’t know what a natural rights are. The whole point of a natural right is that it cannot be granted or given through laws of men, they are natural...Like the ability to speak, the ability to defend oneself, the right to privacy, property, etc. They can be ensured by placing limitations and restrictions onto the government, like the bill of rights does. You seem to just barf words when you don’t have a retort

natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions

Who said?

You don't even know what the **** you are saying.

Do you even know what natural rights are?

I have NEVER seen, read, or heard anyone opine that natural rights are protected by the states v. Fed Gov. Either you are making shit up or you are talking to (and believing) ignoramuses.

 

[danielpalos]

natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions

Who said?

You don't even know what the **** you are saying.

Do you even know what natural rights are?

I have NEVER seen, read, or heard anyone opine that natural rights are protected by the states v. Fed Gov. Either you are making shit up or you are talking to, and believing) ignoramuses.

dude, nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law or politics. appeals to ignorance is all y'all seem to be good for.

natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions

Who said?

You don't even know what the **** you are saying.

Do you even know what natural rights are?

I have NEVER seen, read, or heard anyone opine that natural rights are protected by the states v. Fed Gov. Either you are making shit up or you are talking to, and believing) ignoramuses.

dude, nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law or politics. appeals to ignorance is all y'all seem to be good for.

natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions

Do you even know what you just typed?

Nobody takes you seriously.

Show me the authority on which you are relying in claiming that State Constitutions (rather than the US constitution) secure natural rights.

Or, you're just making shit up. (More likely)