progressive hunter
Diamond Member
- Dec 11, 2018
- 67,847
- 42,662
- 2,615
CDZ How The Second Amendment Comes From Something That Happened In The 2nd Century BCE
- Thread starter skews13
- Start date
Ummmmmm, I'm not sure you are right there, nor that it's relevant. The problem of the moment is furious people frantic about the COVID police state problems taking out their anger on neighbors and family. Some black ex-NFL player just last night killed an elderly white doctor and wife and grandchildren and some other people in South Carolina. It's happening almost daily now; I blame the COVID lockdowns and maskings and all the other idiocies.
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,558
- 52,805
- 2,290
Wrong, this is a lie.If the 2nd Amendment is so good, one has to wonder why other nations haven't looked at it and said, "Damn...we need on of those!"When Congress approved the First Amendment on Dec. 15, 1791, they didn’t feel any need to describe why they were insisting on freedom of speech, publication, religion, and protest. They didn’t say “for the purposes of reporting the news,” or “because we think Americans should go to church,” or set limits on the size of marches. There are no specific purposes, and no boundaries set on any of these rights.
However, when the Second Amendment was passed on the same day, it was laden with all too familiar language that describes exactly why citizens were to be permitted firearms: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.” Citizens were allowed to have guns for a specific purpose. And while it may be possible, with enough convoluted statements and nonsense about the 18th century context of “well-regulated” or the definition of “militia,” to deliberately misunderstand the clear meaning of the this limit, the authors underlined the meaning in the Third Amendment.
Daily Kos
Daily Kos is a progressive news site that fights for democracy by giving our audience information and resources to win elections and impact government. Our coverage is assiduously factual, ethical, and unapologetically liberal. We amplify what we think is important, with the proper context—not...m.dailykos.com
Protection of the elected government from both a standing army, and an insurrectionist mob.
No...we know why....the Germans didn't want a 2nd Amendment because you can't murder 12 million men, women and children if the 12 million have easy access to guns........
“No, gun control regulation in Nazi Germany did not help advance the Holocaust”
No, gun control regulation in Nazi Germany did not help advance the Holocaust
On March 13, 2018, gun control activists laid 7,000 pairs of shoes on the lawn outside the Capitol in D.C. to representwww.politifact.com
Do you guys understand that this is a lie? That they intentionally ignore the fact....the fact, that the socialists in Germany took guns away from those groups they planned on persecuting and murdering?
Do you understand how that politifact check is just out and out lying?
First, strict German gun regulation was in place before Hitler rose to power and he later oversaw gun laws that loosened many firearm restrictions.
Yes........they registered guns in the 1920s stating that they were doing it to keep make German citizens safer......then, in the 1930s, the socialists used those registration lists to take guns away from Jews and their political enemies......which allowed their brown shirts....(their blm and antifa of the day) to target for beatings, murder, and arson, their political opponents...making it impossible to resist the socialists.......allowing the socialists the ability to take power in the end...
If the 2nd Amendment is such a good idea, no other government in 230+ years has looked at it and said, "We need that here!"
Because those governments want control over their people.....
Russia...murdered 25 million
China...murdered 70 million.
Japan...murdered 3 million.
Cambodia, 1/3 of the population murdered.
Europe...socialists murdered 12 million.
Those countries believed like you ....... the people shouldn't have guns...because it is so much harder to murder them when they can shoot back.
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,558
- 52,805
- 2,290
Wrong.....They went through the history of the Right to bear arms going back to England.......step by step, from England to the colonies to the states and their various constitutions........The U.S. has long held the Right to Bear arms as a Right not given by the Constitution but codified in it....
candycorn
Diamond Member
Every nation...for 230+ years? Really? Not one had the idea of "Hey, lets arm the people so that our neighboring enemies will have to fight them too in addition to our army?"Wrong, this is a lie.If the 2nd Amendment is so good, one has to wonder why other nations haven't looked at it and said, "Damn...we need on of those!"When Congress approved the First Amendment on Dec. 15, 1791, they didn’t feel any need to describe why they were insisting on freedom of speech, publication, religion, and protest. They didn’t say “for the purposes of reporting the news,” or “because we think Americans should go to church,” or set limits on the size of marches. There are no specific purposes, and no boundaries set on any of these rights.
However, when the Second Amendment was passed on the same day, it was laden with all too familiar language that describes exactly why citizens were to be permitted firearms: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.” Citizens were allowed to have guns for a specific purpose. And while it may be possible, with enough convoluted statements and nonsense about the 18th century context of “well-regulated” or the definition of “militia,” to deliberately misunderstand the clear meaning of the this limit, the authors underlined the meaning in the Third Amendment.
Daily Kos
Daily Kos is a progressive news site that fights for democracy by giving our audience information and resources to win elections and impact government. Our coverage is assiduously factual, ethical, and unapologetically liberal. We amplify what we think is important, with the proper context—not...
Protection of the elected government from both a standing army, and an insurrectionist mob.
No...we know why....the Germans didn't want a 2nd Amendment because you can't murder 12 million men, women and children if the 12 million have easy access to guns........
“No, gun control regulation in Nazi Germany did not help advance the Holocaust”
No, gun control regulation in Nazi Germany did not help advance the Holocaust
On March 13, 2018, gun control activists laid 7,000 pairs of shoes on the lawn outside the Capitol in D.C. to represent
Do you guys understand that this is a lie? That they intentionally ignore the fact....the fact, that the socialists in Germany took guns away from those groups they planned on persecuting and murdering?
Do you understand how that politifact check is just out and out lying?
First, strict German gun regulation was in place before Hitler rose to power and he later oversaw gun laws that loosened many firearm restrictions.
Yes........they registered guns in the 1920s stating that they were doing it to keep make German citizens safer......then, in the 1930s, the socialists used those registration lists to take guns away from Jews and their political enemies......which allowed their brown shirts....(their blm and antifa of the day) to target for beatings, murder, and arson, their political opponents...making it impossible to resist the socialists.......allowing the socialists the ability to take power in the end...
If the 2nd Amendment is such a good idea, no other government in 230+ years has looked at it and said, "We need that here!"
Because those governments want control over their people.....
Russia...murdered 25 million
China...murdered 70 million.
Japan...murdered 3 million.
Cambodia, 1/3 of the population murdered.
Europe...socialists murdered 12 million.
Those countries believed like you ....... the people shouldn't have guns...because it is so much harder to murder them when they can shoot back.
Its the CDZ but clearly...you're just full of it.
- Mar 3, 2013
- 86,383
- 49,353
- 2,605
candycorn
Diamond Member
Okay, let say he was an Ex EPL player (English Premier League) living in Dover or London or Liverpool. He's frustrated at all of the "idiocies" as you say. He likely just stews on the situation and then gets over it. But since he's an ex NFL player living in SC...he can go to the pawn shop and buy as many guns as he wants and blast away at someone.
Its little wonder that the other nations are looking at our 2nd Amendment and want no part of it since, as you say, it's almost a daily happening. We've become ice cold about the loss of life due to the 2nd Amendment since 1/2 the nation chalks it up to "Well, they should have armed themselves"
progressive hunter
Diamond Member
- Dec 11, 2018
- 67,847
- 42,662
- 2,615
its not like its not easier to just get in a car and drive through a crowd of people,,,
So they should --------- though it might not have done any good if he snuck up on them.
It's crucial that we be able to shoot back, absolutely crucial. I want the chance to shoot back if attacked.
Last edited:
And if they get onto the freeway rioting, that's exactly what people should do.
candycorn
Diamond Member
Incredibly sad commentary on the type of nation you want. A nation where you never feel safe unless you're armed. Wow.So they should --------- though it might not have done any good if he snuck up on them.
It's crucial that we be able to shoot back, absolutely crucial. I want the chance to shoot back if attacked.
Billy_Kinetta
Paladin of the Lost Hour
- Mar 4, 2013
- 52,766
- 22,245
- 2,320
Wrong. The Supreme Court only applied the 2nd amendment to individuals in 2008.When Congress approved the First Amendment on Dec. 15, 1791, they didn’t feel any need to describe why they were insisting on freedom of speech, publication, religion, and protest. They didn’t say “for the purposes of reporting the news,” or “because we think Americans should go to church,” or set limits on the size of marches. There are no specific purposes, and no boundaries set on any of these rights.
However, when the Second Amendment was passed on the same day, it was laden with all too familiar language that describes exactly why citizens were to be permitted firearms: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.” Citizens were allowed to have guns for a specific purpose. And while it may be possible, with enough convoluted statements and nonsense about the 18th century context of “well-regulated” or the definition of “militia,” to deliberately misunderstand the clear meaning of the this limit, the authors underlined the meaning in the Third Amendment.
Daily Kos
Daily Kos is a progressive news site that fights for democracy by giving our audience information and resources to win elections and impact government. Our coverage is assiduously factual, ethical, and unapologetically liberal. We amplify what we think is important, with the proper context—not...
Protection of the elected government from both a standing army, and an insurrectionist mob.
No, they were not.
The PEOPLE were given the right to keep and bear arms,
NOT the Militia
Complete horseshit. Are you American? If so, your ignorance is astounding.
Billy_Kinetta
Paladin of the Lost Hour
- Mar 4, 2013
- 52,766
- 22,245
- 2,320
You are wrong. All Supreme Court cases prior to Heller, stated that the second amendment DID NOT apply to the states or individuals, only to the national government. You can argue with me till the chickens come home to roost but that will not change past Supreme Court opinions.That is your opinion, it was not the status of the law pre-2008. Even Heller, states that the government still has the power to regulate certain firearms.That is your opinion. That was not the law until 2008.Wrong. The Supreme Court only applied the 2nd amendment to individuals in 2008.When Congress approved the First Amendment on Dec. 15, 1791, they didn’t feel any need to describe why they were insisting on freedom of speech, publication, religion, and protest. They didn’t say “for the purposes of reporting the news,” or “because we think Americans should go to church,” or set limits on the size of marches. There are no specific purposes, and no boundaries set on any of these rights.
However, when the Second Amendment was passed on the same day, it was laden with all too familiar language that describes exactly why citizens were to be permitted firearms: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.” Citizens were allowed to have guns for a specific purpose. And while it may be possible, with enough convoluted statements and nonsense about the 18th century context of “well-regulated” or the definition of “militia,” to deliberately misunderstand the clear meaning of the this limit, the authors underlined the meaning in the Third Amendment.
Daily Kos
Daily Kos is a progressive news site that fights for democracy by giving our audience information and resources to win elections and impact government. Our coverage is assiduously factual, ethical, and unapologetically liberal. We amplify what we think is important, with the proper context—not...
Protection of the elected government from both a standing army, and an insurrectionist mob.
No, they were not.
The PEOPLE were given the right to keep and bear arms,
NOT the Militia
The Constitution 'applied' it much earlier.
" 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. "
no, that's a fact.
the law was based on what the 2nd actually said.
It's been the 'status' since the Constitution was ratified, despite YOUR 'opinion'.
Deal with it.
So post the cases, with the understanding that the SCOTUS can fuck up too, just like Biden.
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,558
- 52,805
- 2,290
Every nation...for 230+ years? Really? Not one had the idea of "Hey, lets arm the people so that our neighboring enemies will have to fight them too in addition to our army?"Wrong, this is a lie.If the 2nd Amendment is so good, one has to wonder why other nations haven't looked at it and said, "Damn...we need on of those!"When Congress approved the First Amendment on Dec. 15, 1791, they didn’t feel any need to describe why they were insisting on freedom of speech, publication, religion, and protest. They didn’t say “for the purposes of reporting the news,” or “because we think Americans should go to church,” or set limits on the size of marches. There are no specific purposes, and no boundaries set on any of these rights.
However, when the Second Amendment was passed on the same day, it was laden with all too familiar language that describes exactly why citizens were to be permitted firearms: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.” Citizens were allowed to have guns for a specific purpose. And while it may be possible, with enough convoluted statements and nonsense about the 18th century context of “well-regulated” or the definition of “militia,” to deliberately misunderstand the clear meaning of the this limit, the authors underlined the meaning in the Third Amendment.
Daily Kos
Daily Kos is a progressive news site that fights for democracy by giving our audience information and resources to win elections and impact government. Our coverage is assiduously factual, ethical, and unapologetically liberal. We amplify what we think is important, with the proper context—not...
Protection of the elected government from both a standing army, and an insurrectionist mob.
No...we know why....the Germans didn't want a 2nd Amendment because you can't murder 12 million men, women and children if the 12 million have easy access to guns........
“No, gun control regulation in Nazi Germany did not help advance the Holocaust”
No, gun control regulation in Nazi Germany did not help advance the Holocaust
On March 13, 2018, gun control activists laid 7,000 pairs of shoes on the lawn outside the Capitol in D.C. to represent
Do you guys understand that this is a lie? That they intentionally ignore the fact....the fact, that the socialists in Germany took guns away from those groups they planned on persecuting and murdering?
Do you understand how that politifact check is just out and out lying?
First, strict German gun regulation was in place before Hitler rose to power and he later oversaw gun laws that loosened many firearm restrictions.
Yes........they registered guns in the 1920s stating that they were doing it to keep make German citizens safer......then, in the 1930s, the socialists used those registration lists to take guns away from Jews and their political enemies......which allowed their brown shirts....(their blm and antifa of the day) to target for beatings, murder, and arson, their political opponents...making it impossible to resist the socialists.......allowing the socialists the ability to take power in the end...
If the 2nd Amendment is such a good idea, no other government in 230+ years has looked at it and said, "We need that here!"
Because those governments want control over their people.....
Russia...murdered 25 million
China...murdered 70 million.
Japan...murdered 3 million.
Cambodia, 1/3 of the population murdered.
Europe...socialists murdered 12 million.
Those countries believed like you ....... the people shouldn't have guns...because it is so much harder to murder them when they can shoot back.
Its the CDZ but clearly...you're just full of it.
Again...those countries don't want their people armed because they don't want them to stand up to the government.....
You can't explain...
25 million murdered in Russia.
70 million murdered in China.
3 million murdered in Asia by Japan.
1/3 the population of cambodia murdered..........
All of the deaths caused by criminals with guns over the same 80 year period? Doesn't even come close to that death count...
Governments with guns, telling their people they are safer without guns....then they murder them......
This is why we have the 2nd Amendment....and nothing you spout can deny the murder of all of these innocent citizens.
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,558
- 52,805
- 2,290
Incredibly sad commentary on the type of nation you want. A nation where you never feel safe unless you're armed. Wow.So they should --------- though it might not have done any good if he snuck up on them.
It's crucial that we be able to shoot back, absolutely crucial. I want the chance to shoot back if attacked.
Did the Russians, Chinese, Europeans, Asians feel safe when their governments murdered them?
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,558
- 52,805
- 2,290
Oh yeah....they have guns in Britain......you just have to be a rich soccer player or politician to own them.............
11 killed in Cumbria, England....sawn off, double barreled shotgun and .22 bolt action rifle....
Meanwhile...in the U.S......Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to save lives from violent criminals....criminals the democrat party keeps letting out of jail and prison...
1.1 million lives .....saved from rape, robbery and murder.....
Tell us.....which do you prefer.....
A woman is raped, tortured and murdered...or she uses a gun to stop it?
Tell us...your anti-gun extremist friends do not want to answer that question.
Billy_Kinetta
Paladin of the Lost Hour
- Mar 4, 2013
- 52,766
- 22,245
- 2,320
More shameless lying agitprop from Daily Kooks.When Congress approved the First Amendment on Dec. 15, 1791, they didn’t feel any need to describe why they were insisting on freedom of speech, publication, religion, and protest. They didn’t say “for the purposes of reporting the news,” or “because we think Americans should go to church,” or set limits on the size of marches. There are no specific purposes, and no boundaries set on any of these rights.
However, when the Second Amendment was passed on the same day, it was laden with all too familiar language that describes exactly why citizens were to be permitted firearms: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.” Citizens were allowed to have guns for a specific purpose. And while it may be possible, with enough convoluted statements and nonsense about the 18th century context of “well-regulated” or the definition of “militia,” to deliberately misunderstand the clear meaning of the this limit, the authors underlined the meaning in the Third Amendment.
Daily Kos
Daily Kos is a progressive news site that fights for democracy by giving our audience information and resources to win elections and impact government. Our coverage is assiduously factual, ethical, and unapologetically liberal. We amplify what we think is important, with the proper context—not...
Protection of the elected government from both a standing army, and an insurrectionist mob.
The sentence structure is clear....
View attachment 477276
Whipping out diagrammed sentences on an ill-prepared mob, eh?
Billy_Kinetta
Paladin of the Lost Hour
- Mar 4, 2013
- 52,766
- 22,245
- 2,320
If the 2nd Amendment is so good, one has to wonder why other nations haven't looked at it and said, "Damn...we need on of those!"When Congress approved the First Amendment on Dec. 15, 1791, they didn’t feel any need to describe why they were insisting on freedom of speech, publication, religion, and protest. They didn’t say “for the purposes of reporting the news,” or “because we think Americans should go to church,” or set limits on the size of marches. There are no specific purposes, and no boundaries set on any of these rights.
However, when the Second Amendment was passed on the same day, it was laden with all too familiar language that describes exactly why citizens were to be permitted firearms: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.” Citizens were allowed to have guns for a specific purpose. And while it may be possible, with enough convoluted statements and nonsense about the 18th century context of “well-regulated” or the definition of “militia,” to deliberately misunderstand the clear meaning of the this limit, the authors underlined the meaning in the Third Amendment.
Daily Kos
Daily Kos is a progressive news site that fights for democracy by giving our audience information and resources to win elections and impact government. Our coverage is assiduously factual, ethical, and unapologetically liberal. We amplify what we think is important, with the proper context—not...
Protection of the elected government from both a standing army, and an insurrectionist mob.
Historically, Europeans have a long tradition of kneeling placidly before their rulers. That don't fly here.
Somebody already beat me to the Heller argument. That being said, the whole idea of a "well regulated militia" has already been differentiated. And it doesn't apply. It's one of the reasons that the modern day National Guard doesn't like being associated with the word "militia". I support any law abiding citizens right to own, operate, and carry a firearm. But gun regulations aren't gun grabs. I see nothing wrong with a national gun registry, closing all the gunshow loopholes, forcing private sales to either be handled through a licensed firearms dealer or pass registration in your state, and expanded background checks. These are just common sense.
So, About That "Well-Regulated Militia" Part of the Constitution
Bay Area demonstrations by right-wing groups scheduled over the weekend fizzled in face of massive opposition protests, defusing fears that Charlottesville-like violence could erupt in San Francisco and Berkeley. Indeed, protests in San Francisco were peaceful, and the few scuffles that did...alumni.berkeley.edu
The Germans, French, Russians, Australians, Canadians, British, New Zealand didn't see anything wrong with a national gun registry either.....in fact, they liked it so much, they used it when they decided to ban and confiscate guns...
There is no gun show loophole.
Registration is the goal, so you can later ban and confiscate without having to worry about people hiding their guns...which is the only reason you want universal background checks....it is the trojan horse for gun registration.
While it may be somewhat misnamed, the gun show loophole does indeed exist.
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/GettyImages-108061576-5c39472746e0fb00017a7633.jpg)
What Is the Gun Show Loophole and Why Does it Exist?
Gun sold or transferred by private gun owners are not regulated by law in many states, creating a loophole in gun control.
I see constant wailing on this board about the gun violence in Chicago when the city is supposed to be a gun free zone.
Well...where do the guns come from? And how do they get there? If you look at this article, you'll notice the states that
have "closed" that loophole and those that haven't. You will also find that the most of the guns that make it into Chicago,
come from the states that still have that loophole open.
There is nothing wrong with registration. We demand that cars are registered.
And your gun "ban" argument in these countries doesn't quite hold water. I just took Germany as an example.
In fact, I see a lot common sense in these requirements. Some of them wouldn't fly here and I would never support a gun grab (Wouldn't happen anyway).
Where does Germany stand on gun control? – DW – 07/14/2024
In Germany, buying, possessing and using guns is strictly regulated. DW looks at the details of gun ownership laws.
www.dw.com
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Florida Health Dept confirms Pfizer mRNA vax killed 470,000 people.- Started by theHawk
- Replies: 0
-
D. Trump: What caused the war to start was when they (Ukrainians) started talking about joining NATO - English version
- Started by Dissident
- Replies: 1
-
China is about to collapse! The whole country is made of tofu!- Started by Mac-7
- Replies: 3
