Second amendment more important?

[Si modo]

Do you even know what you are arguing any longer?

It's a serious question.

If you find fault with something I've posted..

OK...

1: Show that the 2nd amendment means what you say it means.
2: Show how simple posession/ownership of a firearm harms anyone or places them in a condition of immediate danger.

1. **** that! I can't even tell what he thinks it means.

 

[Sallow]

Not.

You are FREE to say ANYTHING you want.

You are FREE to OWN a gun.

How you USE them can have consequences.

You should not be restricted in your speech or gun ownership. However, if you use them in an illegal manner, their are laws and consequences to how you used them. The restriction is in the USE, not the right.

There are markedly distinct difference between guns and words.

Guns can inflict great bodily harm or kill.

Words? Not so much.

So can words. "You are hereby sentenced to death. May God have mercy on your soul."

But, yeah, words aren't guns. Any other obvious things you want to point out?

By itself? Man to man? Those words have little or no meaning.

But when spoken in a court of law..which is populated with men who have guns and ready to act in behalf of the person speaking those words..

Yep..lots of meaning.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The militias went home at certain time of the year as there were no standing army. This gave them the right to take their weapons home.

You mean besides the fact that it was their weapons in the first place, right?

I bet they fought over who got to take home the Howitzers.

They didnt (usually) bring the howitzers.
They -did- bring the muskets, rifles, pistols, pikes, axes, daggers and swords, however.

 

[Sallow]

Do you even know what you are arguing any longer?

It's a serious question.

If you find fault with something I've posted..I suggest you post a counter and support it.

Otherwise..we can get into a pissing contest.

I can do both.

I've, and others have, already shown you what the 2nd amendment is, what militia is, and that individuals have a right to bear arms.

So, what are you arguing NOW?

Or, are you still arguing falsehoods?

Honestly, I can't tell anymore. So, if you care to articulate your point, perhaps that might move this along.

I posted the amendment..as it was written and clear of abridgement.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If you find fault with something I've posted..

OK...

1: Show that the 2nd amendment means what you say it means.
2: Show how simple posession/ownership of a firearm harms anyone or places them in a condition of immediate danger.

1. **** that! I can't even tell what he thinks it means.

Don't worry - she will avoid doing so, on both accounts.

 

[The T]

The Federalist papers..were a series of opinions meant to convince New Yorkers to sign on to the Constitution.

And..no..no laws are drawn from those opinions.

However they spoke about the Constitution in real terms versus the Articles of Confederation.

In any case? The SCOTUS used the Constitution for Heller. You read it yet? I took time out of my day and gave a link.

Case law my ass s0n. You have no clue.

They "spoke" about many things.

Hamilton, for example, wrote extensively about the dangers of a standing professional army under federal control.

What's your take on that?

And they also codified the Declaration with ratification of the Constitution and the protection of Life, Liberty, Persuit of happiness [property] that the Constitution guarantees each individual...

And I'll bet you're in denial about that as well, aren't you?

Shame through Heller the SCOTUS also codified the Second Amendment isn't it?

They were after all only talking about it...

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Pretty hilarious to watch LOLberals attempting to read the constitution in its plain text after spending so many decades making interpretative implications of the words instead of the plain text.

Oh, the irony is delicious.

 

[Liability]

I "grasp" the entire amendment..in plain text.

It assures the right of the "people" (not person) as in collective, to bear arms, to insure the security of the state in a militia.

It does not protect the right to hunt.
It does not protect the right to conceal carry.
It does not protect the right to use arms for home protection.
It does not protect the right to "stand your ground".

That comes from case law.

No. You clearly do not "grasp" the meaning of the Second Amendment very well at all.

The right of the People is not intended to convey some collectivist tripe. You have the right as a person. I have the right as a person. Together, we have it as people. But the plural doesn't erase the singular.

That is a strained and irrational interpretation you offer. It makes NO sense. And I will now prove it:

The FIRST Amendment (among other things) guarantees the right of the "people" to petition the Government for the redress of grievances. Are YOU suggesting that we can petition the gubmint but only if we do it in groups of two or more?

I got it fine.

Additionally..the second amendment includes the words "militia" and "security of the state".

Words that don't seem to make it into many interpretations of the amendment.

No. You don't have it fine. Unless you mean that you have it all bollixed up, which you do.

And we all know that the Second Amendment makes references to "militia." Just as the use of the plural does not negate the singular, so too the use of the word "militia" does not negate the very right secured by the Constitution TO THE PEOPLE.

Here is one way of viewing it that is supported by logic and common sense:

As a matter of logic, it is an error to believe that nullification of the opening phrase would nullify the main clause. Imagine a long-lost constitution that stated: "The earth being flat, the right of the people to abstain from ocean travel shall not be infringed." Would anyone seriously argue that discovery of the earth's spherical shape would justify compelling people to sail?

-- What the Second Amendment Means

Your position just doesn't withstand scrutiny. If the Framers had intended to allude to some alleged "right" of the STATEs to have arms, they presumably could have and would have said as much. They never did. If they did not mean to make specific reference to the already existing right of the PEOPLE (individuals) to keep and bear arms, they need not have said it in the way they did. If there is a security reason buttressing the guarantee of that already existing RIGHT, that's great, and may be worth noting; but the security justification need not be viewed as the sole reason for the right which already exists.

 

[PredFan]

There is never going to be any chance of getting through the very thick skulls of lefties. So...**** pro gun control morons, **** obama, **** the left, you aren't getting my guns so go eat a dick you pussies.

 

[Sallow]

Do you even know what you are arguing any longer?

It's a serious question.

If you find fault with something I've posted..

OK...

1: Show that the 2nd amendment means what you say it means.
2: Show how simple posession/ownership of a firearm harms anyone or places them in a condition of immediate danger.

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

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.

That's it..in clear text.

All firearm deaths
•Number of deaths: 31,347
•Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.2
FASTSTATS - Injuries

Again..clear text.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

That's it..in clear text.

Coward.
Show -how- the 'clear text' means what you say it means.

All firearm deaths
•Number of deaths: 31,347
•Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.2
FASTSTATS - Injuries

Again..clear text.

This does nothing to show how -simple/posession/ownership- of a firearm causes harm or creates immediate danger.
Try again.

 

[Sallow]

No. You clearly do not "grasp" the meaning of the Second Amendment very well at all.

The right of the People is not intended to convey some collectivist tripe. You have the right as a person. I have the right as a person. Together, we have it as people. But the plural doesn't erase the singular.

That is a strained and irrational interpretation you offer. It makes NO sense. And I will now prove it:

The FIRST Amendment (among other things) guarantees the right of the "people" to petition the Government for the redress of grievances. Are YOU suggesting that we can petition the gubmint but only if we do it in groups of two or more?

I got it fine.

Additionally..the second amendment includes the words "militia" and "security of the state".

Words that don't seem to make it into many interpretations of the amendment.

No. You don't have it fine. Unless you mean that you have it all bollixed up, which you do.

And we all know that the Second Amendment makes references to "militia." Just as the use of the plural does not negate the singular, so too the use of the word "militia" does not negate the very right secured by the Constitution TO THE PEOPLE.

Here is one way of viewing it that is supported by logic and common sense:

As a matter of logic, it is an error to believe that nullification of the opening phrase would nullify the main clause. Imagine a long-lost constitution that stated: "The earth being flat, the right of the people to abstain from ocean travel shall not be infringed." Would anyone seriously argue that discovery of the earth's spherical shape would justify compelling people to sail?

-- What the Second Amendment Means

Your position just doesn't withstand scrutiny. If the Framers had intended to allude to some alleged "right" of the STATEs to have arms, they presumably could have and would have said as much. They never did. If they did not mean to make specific reference to the already existing right of the PEOPLE (individuals) to keep and bear arms, they need not have said it in the way they did. If there is a security reason buttressing the guarantee of that already existing RIGHT, that's great, and may be worth noting; but the security justification need not be viewed as the sole reason for the right which already exists.

Except there are other parts of the Constitution that support that fact that Framers never wanted a professional army under federal control. Hence..the notion of a part time army comprised of citizen soldiers would be sufficient to repel invasions over land.

Which is why the second amendment was instituted. Security of the state would be in the hands of citizens.

 

[Liability]

If you find fault with something I've posted..

OK...

1: Show that the 2nd amendment means what you say it means.
2: Show how simple posession/ownership of a firearm harms anyone or places them in a condition of immediate danger.

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

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.

That's it..in clear text.

All firearm deaths
•Number of deaths: 31,347
•Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.2
FASTSTATS - Injuries

Again..clear text.

Fail and fail.

The meaning of the Second Amendment is pretty plain, which makes your spin on it hard to explain.

And the fact that murders happen -- sometimes by use of guns -- does not mean that guns are the primary cause of murder. In many cases, if the same murderers had no gun at all, the deaths would still have taken place. FURTHERMORE, if some folks in the theater in Aurora OTHER than just a nutjob gunman had been armed, it is possible (maybe even probable) that the loss of life would not have been that large since somebody might have been able to shoot the Joker wannabe in between his eyes.

In any event, your view, Sallow, was rejected by the SCOTUS in Heller. 'Twas a good thing, too. Scholarship worked.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Except there are other parts of the Constitution that support that fact that Framers never wanted a professional army under federal control.

Except thay they gave the federal government the power to do exactly that.

 

[Sallow]

Pretty hilarious to watch LOLberals attempting to read the constitution in its plain text after spending so many decades making interpretative implications of the words instead of the plain text.

Oh, the irony is delicious.

Irony is a double edged sword.

Because it seems that the second amendment needs a great deal of "interpretative implications" that the right has been for decades "fighting against" (well not really except when it comes to civil rights, helping the poor..and other stuff they don't like).

 

[Sallow]

Except there are other parts of the Constitution that support that fact that Framers never wanted a professional army under federal control.

Except thay they gave the federal government the power to do exactly that.

Not initially.

 

[Sallow]

OK...

1: Show that the 2nd amendment means what you say it means.
2: Show how simple posession/ownership of a firearm harms anyone or places them in a condition of immediate danger.

That's it..in clear text.

All firearm deaths
•Number of deaths: 31,347
•Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.2
FASTSTATS - Injuries

Again..clear text.

Fail and fail.

The meaning of the Second Amendment is pretty plain, which makes your spin on it hard to explain.

And the fact that murders happen -- sometimes by use of guns -- does not mean that guns are the primary cause of murder. In many cases, if the same murderers had no gun at all, the deaths would still have taken place. FURTHERMORE, if some folks in the theater in Aurora OTHER than just a nutjob gunman had been armed, it is possible (maybe even probable) that the loss of life would not have been that large since somebody might have been able to shoot the Joker wannabe in between his eyes.

Some of those deaths are not murders at all..but suicides and accidents.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Except there are other parts of the Constitution that support that fact that Framers never wanted a professional army under federal control.

Except thay they gave the federal government the power to do exactly that.

Not initially.

Really?
When was the Constituion amended to give the federal government the power to create a standing army under federal control?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Some of those deaths are not murders at all..but suicides and accidents.

Neither of which are examples of simple posession/ownership, and thusly excluded as a relevant example.

 

[candycorn]

The text of the amendment doesn't protect the right of the state, or the right of the militia, but the right of the people.



Really?
How many people have been killed in the last 10 years with legally-owned automatic weapons?

Don't know. Theres no need for any sane person to have them though. I do know that.

If you "don't know", where do you get the idea that "If we banned automatic weapons, more Americans would be alive today"?

1: You arent a competent judge of what others "need" while exercising their rights
2: The ability to exercise a right is not based on somone's subjective definition of a "need" to do so.

True. True on both counts.

Common sense says otherwise. Nobody sane needs an automatic weapon. I understand the opposition.

We could argue for decades.

Two truths will remain. A lot of good, well intentioned peole, people of sanity, faith, good sense otherwise, and people of logic will insist that their interpretation of the Constituion gives them the right to have automatic weapons.

And, nobody sane will need an automatic weapon.
That is also true.