Mancin and Sinema Have Saved the Democrats From Themselves

[Frankeneinstein]

All your posts are garbage,

And you lead with your chin

and you clearly don't understand the material.

I didn't realize it was a stand-up routine

 

[JoeB131]

I didn't realize it was a stand-up routine

Educating Trolls is a waste of time. Go Troll somewhere else.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Educating Trolls is a waste of time. Go Troll somewhere else.

any liberal who wastes their time has done the country a favor

 

[JoeB131]

any liberal who wastes their time has done the country a favor

As opposed to Conservatives, who do damage to the country and think they are right with Jesus.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

As opposed to Conservatives, who do damage to the country and think they are right with Jesus.

Now you're just lashing out willy-nilly again...why are you telling me this?

 

[Open Bolt]

Okay, so you can have a gun if you are part of a well-regulated militia... sounds reasonable to me.
Just walk down and sign up.

The National Guard is not the militia. They are part of a standing army.

More importantly, people have the right to have guns for the private defense of their homes even if they are not in the militia.

Works for me. Frankly, I can't see a single good reason for an average untrained citizen to own a gun.

If you want reasonable training, require reasonable training. You may be surprised how many gun rights supporters would be OK with that.

But people do have the right to have guns for the private defense of their homes.

 

[Open Bolt]

According to the 2nd Amendment...yes.

Actually no. The Second Amendment does not require disarming non-militiamen.

Further, the Second Amendment protects the right of people (including non-militiamen) to have guns for the private defense of their homes.

 

[candycorn]

Actually no. The Second Amendment does not require disarming non-militiamen.

Further, the Second Amendment protects the right of people (including non-militiamen) to have guns for the private defense of their homes.

Doesn't it say "well regulated militia"?

 

[Open Bolt]

Doesn't it say "well regulated militia"?

The first part of the Second Amendment requires the government to always maintain a well regulated militia.

But maintaining a well-regulated militia does not mean disarming non-militiamen.

And then there is the other part of the Second Amendment, which forbids infringing the right to keep and bear arms.

 

[candycorn]

The first part of the Second Amendment requires the government to always maintain a well regulated militia.

It doesn't say any such thing.

 

[Papageorgio]

It's 2022. The future moves quickly and we need a government that's a little better at getting shit done. China isn't going to slow down and wait for us. They'll blow right by and take control.

Getting “shit” for the sake of getting “shit” done is a terrible idea. Gridlock can help keep terrible one side laws for ruining the country and burdening the middle class with overbearing laws.

 

[Open Bolt]

It doesn't say any such thing.

That is incorrect.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state"

 

[candycorn]

That is incorrect.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state"

And it says nothing about the government creating one. Article I says that an Army and Navy would be created.

 

[Open Bolt]

And it says nothing about the government creating one. Article I says that an Army and Navy would be created.

Article. I.
Section. 8.
The Congress shall have Power . . . .
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;

 

[candycorn]

Article. I.
Section. 8.
The Congress shall have Power . . . .
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;

Cool.

Still doesn't validate your statement on what the 2nd Amendment says.

 

[Open Bolt]

Cool.
Still doesn't validate your statement on what the 2nd Amendment says.

It wasn't supposed to. It was supposed to address your comment about the government's authority to create militias.

My statement on what the Second Amendment says was validated by an earlier post that I made that quoted the relevant part of the Second Amendment.

 

[candycorn]

It wasn't supposed to. It was supposed to address your comment about the government's authority to create militias.

My statement on what the Second Amendment says was validated by an earlier post that I made that quoted the relevant part of the Second Amendment.

Hardly. No part of the amendment states that it was creating militias. At any rate, there are no "well regulated militias" up and running right now...so the 2nd Amendment (the part gun nuts don't like anyway) does not allow for private gun ownership.

 

[San Souci]

That argument would have merit if the other side were interested in actually governing, instead of just bringing everything to a standstill.

The real question is, why do we have a Senate at all, giving equal representation to scarcely populated rectangles in the desert.

As a Check and balance. Besides ,this is a REPUBLIC. Not a true Democracy. Try reading the Constitution. It will explain the need for the Senate.

 

[theHawk]

That argument would have merit if the other side were interested in actually governing, instead of just bringing everything to a standstill.

The real question is, why do we have a Senate at all, giving equal representation to scarcely populated rectangles in the desert.

You should really move to China.

Or better yet the Ukraine. Me thinks that type of “democracy” is more suited for you.

 

[Open Bolt]

Hardly.

No, the Second Amendment very clearly states that a well regulated militia is necessary.

No part of the amendment states that it was creating militias.

Ideally the militia would already be created, and the Second Amendment would just be about keeping it up.

But in a situation where it does not currently exist, requiring its existence does mean creating it.

At any rate, there are no "well regulated militias" up and running right now...so the 2nd Amendment (the part gun nuts don't like anyway)

It is the Freedom Haters who don't like the Second Amendment. It is always getting in the way of their gun ban agenda.

does not allow for private gun ownership.

That is incorrect. The Second Amendment protects the right of people to have guns for the private defense of their homes.