Hey Liberals!

[Sallow]

Speaking of the Constitution, can you explain to me that pesky clause about "well regulated..." blah blah. I know it's something that probably isn't important but perhaps you could explain the reason it's in the Constitution.

The militia consists of all able bodied men of the community.

The term, "well regulated" at the time meant well trained in military combat.

If the founders meant controlled, they would have worded it differently, they were not illiterate, as many on this site are.

"Shall not be infringed" would not have been written if they did not mean SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!

Are you really that IGNORANT of the Constitution??????

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Is the second amendment, which you misquote CONSTANTLY..all you ******* KNOW ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?

 

[Sallow]

You demand gun control laws, (and others), that are Unconstitutional.
Why don't you work within the Constitutional bounds to get your way instead of just demanding it? Our Founding Fathers wrote Article Five just for you whiners, yet you ignore it!

Example:
Juan Williams,
Juan Williams reacts to Fort Hood: Time for U.S. to go 'gun-free' - Washington Times (there, I fixed it)

If you are against the United States Constitution, you are un-American and my enemy!

What part of the Constitution mentions guns?

And it's typical you think other Americans are your enemy.

Liberals wage wars on foreign enemies.

Conservatives wage wars on other Americans.

What part of the Constitution mentions guns? LMAO - did you think about what you posted or just let your fingers do the talking ?

The Second Ammendment

Find the word "gun" in the second amendment.

Actually..find it anywhere in the Constitution.

 

[GreenBean]

What part of the Constitution mentions guns?

And it's typical you think other Americans are your enemy.

Liberals wage wars on foreign enemies.

Conservatives wage wars on other Americans.

What part of the Constitution mentions guns? LMAO - did you think about what you posted or just let your fingers do the talking ?

The Second Ammendment

Find the word "gun" in the second amendment.

Actually..find it anywhere in the Constitution.

ARMS

Guns is to Arms, as Anus is to Asshole, as Asshole is to Jack Ass, as Jack Ass is to Liberal, as Sallow is to Shallow

THE RIGHT TO BARE ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

 

[Sallow]

The militia consists of all able bodied men of the community.

The term, "well regulated" at the time meant well trained in military combat.

If the founders meant controlled, they would have worded it differently, they were not illiterate, as many on this site are.

"Shall not be infringed" would not have been written if they did not mean SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!

They also intended those militias to fight against a tyrannical government if the need arose. That is why the right to bear arms is a right. They knew damn well what happened when citizens were disarmed. The left thinks things have changed and tyranny is a thing of the past. It isn't. Human nature remains the same and we will always have those who seek to rule the world. The only ones uncomfortable with people being able to defend themselves are those whom people would defend themselves against.

and thats the part that liberals don't get. in their supreme ignorance they think the government is all good, warm, and loving i.e. they are idiots.

Absolutely nothing in the Constitution supports this notion.

Nothing. Zip. Zero.

Quite the opposite.

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

And the government gets a toolbox of emergency powers when you nutters start making noise.

 

[Sallow]

What part of the Constitution mentions guns? LMAO - did you think about what you posted or just let your fingers do the talking ?

The Second Ammendment

Find the word "gun" in the second amendment.

Actually..find it anywhere in the Constitution.

ARMS

Guns is to Arms, as Anus is to Asshole, as Asshole is to Jack Ass, as Jack Ass is to Liberal, as Sallow is to Shallow

THE RIGHT TO BARE ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

So you couldn't find guns..huh?

 

[RDD_1210]

What part of the Constitution mentions guns? LMAO - did you think about what you posted or just let your fingers do the talking ?

The Second Ammendment

Find the word "gun" in the second amendment.

Actually..find it anywhere in the Constitution.

ARMS

Guns is to Arms, as Anus is to Asshole, as Asshole is to Jack Ass, as Jack Ass is to Liberal, as Sallow is to Shallow

THE RIGHT TO BARE ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

You forgot the well regulated part. Why is that?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Find the word "gun" in the second amendment.

Actually..find it anywhere in the Constitution.

ARMS

Guns is to Arms, as Anus is to Asshole, as Asshole is to Jack Ass, as Jack Ass is to Liberal, as Sallow is to Shallow

THE RIGHT TO BARE ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

So you couldn't find guns..huh?

Find telephone, computer or any other item that's protected speech under the First Amendment.

I bet you can't!!

You tool!!

 

[Sallow]

ARMS

Guns is to Arms, as Anus is to Asshole, as Asshole is to Jack Ass, as Jack Ass is to Liberal, as Sallow is to Shallow

THE RIGHT TO BARE ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

So you couldn't find guns..huh?

Find telephone, computer or any other item that's protected speech under the First Amendment.

I bet you can't!!

You tool!!

You've just made my point without even realizing it!

 

[Esmeralda]

You demand gun control laws, (and others), that are Unconstitutional.
Why don't you work within the Constitutional bounds to get your way instead of just demanding it? Our Founding Fathers wrote Article Five just for you whiners, yet you ignore it!

Example:
Juan Williams,
Juan Williams reacts to Fort Hood: Time for U.S. to go 'gun-free' - Washington Times (there, I fixed it)

If you are against the United States Constitution, you are un-American and my enemy!

Another pro-gun thread on the intellectual level of a wombat.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

So you couldn't find guns..huh?

Find telephone, computer or any other item that's protected speech under the First Amendment.

I bet you can't!!

You tool!!

You've just made my point without even realizing it!

Good. The fact that items are specifically called out doesn't mitigate the constitutional right attributed to them.


I'm glad you agree.

 

[Sallow]

Find telephone, computer or any other item that's protected speech under the First Amendment.

I bet you can't!!

You tool!!

You've just made my point without even realizing it!

Good. The fact that items are specifically called out doesn't mitigate the constitutional right attributed to them.


I'm glad you agree.

Sure.

According to the second amendment and the united states constitution; you have the right to bear arms as part of a militia under the control of the federal government engaged, actively in defending the state.

Glad we cleared that up.

 

[BlindBoo]

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled over and over against you Liberals on the Second Amendment.
The Founders, in their personal and public papers have sided against you Liberals.
Yet you keep beating that dead horse!

How many times? 2? In 5-4 decisions splits along ideological lines.

 

[hangover]

Cons invoke the constitution for guns, but shit can it when it comes to equal rights, voting rights, women's rights. And freedom of religion is only for their brand of christianity. Cons really put the hypo in hypocrite.

 

[BlindBoo]

Speaking of the Constitution, can you explain to me that pesky clause about "well regulated..." blah blah. I know it's something that probably isn't important but perhaps you could explain the reason it's in the Constitution.

The militia consists of all able bodied men of the community.

The term, "well regulated" at the time meant well trained in military combat.

If the founders meant controlled, they would have worded it differently, they were not illiterate, as many on this site are.

"Shall not be infringed" would not have been written if they did not mean SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!

They also intended those militias to fight against a tyrannical government if the need arose. That is why the right to bear arms is a right. They knew damn well what happened when citizens were disarmed. The left thinks things have changed and tyranny is a thing of the past. It isn't. Human nature remains the same and we will always have those who seek to rule the world. The only ones uncomfortable with people being able to defend themselves are those whom people would defend themselves against.

Except those Militias were put under control of the Government (by the people). The tyranny they were afraid of was England. Furthermore, the first insurrection (Whiskey Rebellion) was confronted and put down with a militia.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

You've just made my point without even realizing it!

Good. The fact that items are specifically called out doesn't mitigate the constitutional right attributed to them.


I'm glad you agree.

Sure.

According to the second amendment and the united states constitution; you have the right to bear arms as part of a militia under the control of the federal government engaged, actively in defending the state.

Glad we cleared that up.

No you're mistaken

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


The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of individuals[1][2] to keep and bear arms.[3][4][5][6] The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the right vests in individuals, not merely collective militias, while also ruling that the right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of either firearms or similar devices.[7] State and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing this right per the incorporation of the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791, as part of the first ten amendments comprising the Bill of Rights.

 

[emilynghiem]

This Amendment (and its clauses referring to "well regulated militia" and "people") have been interpreted different ways, and I find all of them applicable. Even when it was first written and passed, not all people agree what it meant. There were some states that had their own militias and some that did not, and the Second Amendment applied to all cases.

1. Whether referring to a government military, who need to be well trained and take an oath to defend the laws and rights of the people under the Constitution

2. Or any State, local police, or independent militias, such as the Texas Rangers or the groups organized during the American Revolution to defend the people at a time of war against their own government at the time, (who also need to be well trained and should be defending the Constitution not trying to justify committing crimes or abuses with weapons)

3. And/or individual citizens and people, who also need to be well trained in gun safety and legal responsibility, in order to defend rights under the Constitution (and not enable or justify committing crimes or abuses with weapons that violate the same rights of others)

In all cases the people either individually or in groups, official or not, should be well trained and should be enforcing and upholding laws -- not seeking to violate any by abuse of force.

Does it matter if "people" means "inside or outside" the state, government or local independent "militia" groups?

Don't we agree that ALL PEOPLE (either individually or in a collective group, either inside or outside official government capacity) using guns should be trained in safety, following legal procedures, and upholding and defend laws (not violating them) so that this doesn't impose a risk of danger or violation of "due process and defense" of other people?

Isn't that the common standard we agree on, regardless how we interpret the
separate clauses within the Second Amendment.

I don't know ANY advocates of Second Amendment gun rights who DON'T believe in upholding Constitutional laws and principles; what people disagree on is who has the authority to establish what the regulations are on training and responsibility.

People want direct consent, whether they believe this means going through government or reserving the rights to the people directly; either way, if we stick to where we agree, then government policy would align with people's consent anyway, with no need for conflict.

We can easily agree to set up Constitutional training in law enforcement on a local level.
I don't know anyone who would disagree with the benefits of teaching all citizens the laws and procedures of local police and all levels of government for equal security and defense.

Speaking of the Constitution, can you explain to me that pesky clause about "well regulated..." blah blah. I know it's something that probably isn't important but perhaps you could explain the reason it's in the Constitution.

I don't know any gun rights activists who DON'T believe in using them to enforce Constitutional rights, laws and principles. What is missing is ensuring there is consistent training and "oath to uphold the laws" which frankly I would require for ALL CITIZENS.

Not only are guns and other weapons abused to violate rights of others, but even our legal, judicial, and political systems are routinely abused to rob people of equal rights and freedoms by "coercion" instead of defending equal protections.

We don't have "equal defense" there either, even where we use civil procedural means of defending rights as opposed to use of guns as force.

So taking oaths and training to defend EQUAL Constitutional rights and freedoms for all citizens should solve problems with EITHER abuse of guns or abuse of laws and govt.

Whether as individuals or collective groups -- Corporations, Political Parties, Media resources -- NO ONE should be in the business of abusing rights or freedoms to violate the same of others. By accepting legal responsibility for citizenship and/or licensed operation in the US, both citizens and corporate/collective entities should agree to uphold laws equally; and never abuse either weapons or authority to oppress due process or equal protections.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Cons invoke the constitution for guns, but shit can it when it comes to equal rights, voting rights, women's rights. And freedom of religion is only for their brand of christianity. Cons really put the hypo in hypocrite.

We all have the same rights.

You idiots believe you have a "right" to just about everything.... marriage, education, housing, healthcare....etc.

 

[emilynghiem]

You've just made my point without even realizing it!

Good. The fact that items are specifically called out doesn't mitigate the constitutional right attributed to them.


I'm glad you agree.

Sure.

According to the second amendment and the united states constitution; you have the right to bear arms as part of a militia under the control of the federal government engaged, actively in defending the state.

Glad we cleared that up.

That is one interpretation. The others are equally valid.

 

[BlindBoo]

You demand gun control laws, (and others), that are Unconstitutional.
Why don't you work within the Constitutional bounds to get your way instead of just demanding it? Our Founding Fathers wrote Article Five just for you whiners, yet you ignore it!

Example:
Juan Williams,
Juan Williams reacts to Fort Hood: Time for U.S. to go 'gun-free' - Washington Times (there, I fixed it)

If you are against the United States Constitution, you are un-American and my enemy!

What part of the Constitution mentions guns?

And it's typical you think other Americans are your enemy.

Liberals wage wars on foreign enemies.

Conservatives wage wars on other Americans.

today the government is the enemy of the people. the government is taking away your constitutional rights every day. and you willingly accept it as long as some evil rich guy is somehow damaged by it-----------you are pathetic.

Well, the government is the enemy of the people who flew plane into our buildings on 9-11.....and those who support them.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Good. The fact that items are specifically called out doesn't mitigate the constitutional right attributed to them.


I'm glad you agree.

Sure.

According to the second amendment and the united states constitution; you have the right to bear arms as part of a militia under the control of the federal government engaged, actively in defending the state.

Glad we cleared that up.

That is one interpretation. The others are equally valid.

No his interpretation isn't valid. SCOTUS has ruled that the right to bear arms is an individual right and not merely to collective militias.

District of Columbia v. Heller