The NRA.

[Taz]

So you're saying you have no reason to fear the NRA?

I don't fear the NRA. I don't like them buying off pols, but not afraid of them, per se.

And yet they aren't the biggest group paying politicians by a long shot... that would go to the left wing unions.... trade unions, teachers unions and lawyers..... and they all support gun control, taking away the Right to self defense from American citizens.

Gun control doesn't remove all the guns, that's another NRA scare tactics. That YOU fell for that is not a surprise.

Yes, preventing prisoners from having guns is gun control.

WTF are you talking about?

Why isn't the NRA upholding prisoners' right to have a gun? "shall not be infringed", not even in jail. But no, the NRA doesn't back prisoners, you know why? Because prisoners don't buy guns. the NRA is but a gun manufacturers lobby, and you pay for that, lol.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I don't fear the NRA. I don't like them buying off pols, but not afraid of them, per se.

And yet they aren't the biggest group paying politicians by a long shot... that would go to the left wing unions.... trade unions, teachers unions and lawyers..... and they all support gun control, taking away the Right to self defense from American citizens.

Gun control doesn't remove all the guns, that's another NRA scare tactics. That YOU fell for that is not a surprise.

Yes, preventing prisoners from having guns is gun control.

WTF are you talking about?

Why isn't the NRA upholding prisoners' right to have a gun? "shall not be infringed", not even in jail. But no, the NRA doesn't back prisoners, you know why? Because prisoners don't buy guns. the NRA is but a gun manufacturers lobby, and you pay for that, lol.

Dont be an idiot.

 

[Abatis]

The "militia rights" theory is that a militia has rights, rather than individuals. I'm assuming this is what you're talking about.

That is how the "militia right" interpretation has been understood. I have noted you are not arguing that.

I use the term "militia rights" (plural) to argue that there are no rights recognized / granted / established by the 2nd Amendment to be claimed by anyone, that pertain to militia. My original statement, where I first brought the "no militia rights" argument into this thread, was in post 108:

There are no "militia rights" to be found or claimed under the 2nd Amendment. There is no right for citizens to "be in the militia" nor is there any right for citizens to form their own militia, independent of law.

That has nothing to do with the old militia right interpretation.

Look, an individual has a right to own weapons. We know why this was inserted into the Bill of Rights specifically, it was so the militia would have a ready supply of weapons.

Do you agree with this?

I agree that perpetuating the general militia principle was the object of the 2nd Amendment but I do not believe that the federal recognition and protection of the right is qualified, conditioned or restricted to just that "purpose" (to use your word).

It is my argument that the RKBA exists because no power was granted to the feds to have any interest in the personal arms of the private citizen -- not because the 2nd Amendment says there is. There is no power for the feds in any capacity (Executive, Legislative or the Judiciary) to limit the recognition of the right or the scope of protection to just that militia object.

What other purpose would there have been to protect firearms?

Backwards thinking. The question is, how has the federal government been empowered to limit the protection of the RBKA to just militia action / function?

Yes, they were important tools at the time. But many important tools existed at the time, and none of them were given constitutional protection.

Tools to build and maintain and secure what?

Liberty . . .

Books are also protected, the printing press is protected, speech is protected but nobody would ever argue that the protection of these objects and actions is limited to just the narrow political object of securing Liberty.

Also, why guns in an amendment that starts with "A well regulated militia"?

When placed alongside state RKBA provisions, the construction is not so peculiar.

The declaration in the federal 2nd Amendment, "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is inextricably meshed (philosophically) with, "as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up." To the framers and state reps and citizens, each represented the same sentiment . . .

The declaratory clause of the 2nd Amendment only re-affirms what once was a universally understood and accepted maxim; that the armed citizenry dispenses with the need for a standing army (in times of peace) and those armed citizens stand as a barrier to foreign invasion and domestic tyranny (thus ensuring the free state).

Firstly, that the feds could declare individuals religiously scrupulous and prevent them from bearing arms, or rendering militia service or militia duty. You choose, they're all in this document and all used synonymously.

The Quakers were not objecting to militia service per se, they were pacifists as a principle in their entire life. They would not use a weapon to harm another person even to defend their own life. The larger, modern military has made allowances for such people permitting conscientious objectors to serve in non-combat positions. You are really, really, really over-reading the "religiously scrupulous" debate.

Do you agree that this is what Mr Gerry meant?

Yes, even a clause intended to demonstrate deference to certain people, to protect their unique rights, could be misconstructed into creating a power to restrict everyone's rights. That's why it was defeated.

The Federalist Papers saw no problem with a standing army.

"Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. "

The Federalist Papers claim there's nothing to be worried about.

The Federalists recognized the dangers of a standing army but they argued that having a provision for establishing an army was necessary and that those fear could be mitigated. The Federalists thought some of the Anti-Federalist arguments were a bit silly.

Your chopped quote is disingenuous; you left out the beginning, "Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made." It isn't advocating or endorsing a standing army, it is saying that even if a standing army were to be amassed, and even if it were totally devoted to a national ruler, the militia could defeat it by shear numbers.

Madison, after your chop, said that the largest standing army would only amount to 1% of the total population. He said they would be outnumbered 25 to 1 by, as Presser put it, "reserve militia", those citizens capable of bearing arms. Even worse for the standing army, Madison says they would be outnumbered, ("opposed" is the word Madison used) by an organized militia of "citizens with arms in their hands", by a factor of 17 to1.

That's hardly saying there's nothing to worry about, It's saying if a standing army ever came about and if they stepped over the line they would be annihilated.

Interestingly, Madison's ratios remain on point today;

318 million "total souls"
Active duty and National Guard "standing army" of about 3 million
And 75+ million armed citizens opposing the standing army by a factor of 25 to 1.

.

 

[Taz]

And yet they aren't the biggest group paying politicians by a long shot... that would go to the left wing unions.... trade unions, teachers unions and lawyers..... and they all support gun control, taking away the Right to self defense from American citizens.

Gun control doesn't remove all the guns, that's another NRA scare tactics. That YOU fell for that is not a surprise.

Yes, preventing prisoners from having guns is gun control.

WTF are you talking about?

Why isn't the NRA upholding prisoners' right to have a gun? "shall not be infringed", not even in jail. But no, the NRA doesn't back prisoners, you know why? Because prisoners don't buy guns. the NRA is but a gun manufacturers lobby, and you pay for that, lol.

Dont be an idiot.

Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The "militia rights" theory is that a militia has rights, rather than individuals. I'm assuming this is what you're talking about.

That is how the "militia right" interpretation has been understood. I have noted you are not arguing that.

I use the term "militia rights" (plural) to argue that there are no rights recognized / granted / established by the 2nd Amendment to be claimed by anyone, that pertain to militia. My original statement, where I first brought the "no militia rights" argument into this thread, was in post 108:

There are no "militia rights" to be found or claimed under the 2nd Amendment. There is no right for citizens to "be in the militia" nor is there any right for citizens to form their own militia, independent of law.

That has nothing to do with the old militia right interpretation.

Look, an individual has a right to own weapons. We know why this was inserted into the Bill of Rights specifically, it was so the militia would have a ready supply of weapons.

Do you agree with this?

I agree that perpetuating the general militia principle was the object of the 2nd Amendment but I do not believe that the federal recognition and protection of the right is qualified, conditioned or restricted to just that "purpose" (to use your word).

It is my argument that the RKBA exists because no power was granted to the feds to have any interest in the personal arms of the private citizen -- not because the 2nd Amendment says there is. There is no power for the feds in any capacity (Executive, Legislative or the Judiciary) to limit the recognition of the right or the scope of protection to just that militia object.

What other purpose would there have been to protect firearms?

Backwards thinking. The question is, how has the federal government been empowered to limit the protection of the RBKA to just militia action / function?

Yes, they were important tools at the time. But many important tools existed at the time, and none of them were given constitutional protection.

Tools to build and maintain and secure what?

Liberty . . .

Books are also protected, the printing press is protected, speech is protected but nobody would ever argue that the protection of these objects and actions is limited to just the narrow political object of securing Liberty.

Also, why guns in an amendment that starts with "A well regulated militia"?

When placed alongside state RKBA provisions, the construction is not so peculiar.

The declaration in the federal 2nd Amendment, "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is inextricably meshed (philosophically) with, "as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up." To the framers and state reps and citizens, each represented the same sentiment . . .

The declaratory clause of the 2nd Amendment only re-affirms what once was a universally understood and accepted maxim; that the armed citizenry dispenses with the need for a standing army (in times of peace) and those armed citizens stand as a barrier to foreign invasion and domestic tyranny (thus ensuring the free state).

Firstly, that the feds could declare individuals religiously scrupulous and prevent them from bearing arms, or rendering militia service or militia duty. You choose, they're all in this document and all used synonymously.

The Quakers were not objecting to militia service per se, they were pacifists as a principle in their entire life. They would not use a weapon to harm another person even to defend their own life. The larger, modern military has made allowances for such people permitting conscientious objectors to serve in non-combat positions. You are really, really, really over-reading the "religiously scrupulous" debate.

Do you agree that this is what Mr Gerry meant?

Yes, even a clause intended to demonstrate deference to certain people, to protect their unique rights, could be misconstructed into creating a power to restrict everyone's rights. That's why it was defeated.

The Federalist Papers saw no problem with a standing army.

"Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. "

The Federalist Papers claim there's nothing to be worried about.

The Federalists recognized the dangers of a standing army but they argued that having a provision for establishing an army was necessary and that those fear could be mitigated. The Federalists thought some of the Anti-Federalist arguments were a bit silly.

Your chopped quote is disingenuous; you left out the beginning, "Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made." It isn't advocating or endorsing a standing army, it is saying that even if a standing army were to be amassed, and even if it were totally devoted to a national ruler, the militia could defeat it by shear numbers.

Madison, after your chop, said that the largest standing army would only amount to 1% of the total population. He said they would be outnumbered 25 to 1 by, as Presser put it, "reserve militia", those citizens capable of bearing arms. Even worse for the standing army, Madison says they would be outnumbered, ("opposed" is the word Madison used) by an organized militia of "citizens with arms in their hands", by a factor of 17 to1.

That's hardly saying there's nothing to worry about, It's saying if a standing army ever came about and if they stepped over the line they would be annihilated.

Interestingly, Madison's ratios remain on point today;

318 million "total souls"
Active duty and National Guard "standing army" of about 3 million
And 75+ million armed citizens opposing the standing army by a factor of 25 to 1.

.

No, there are not rights that pertain to the militia. Individual human beings have rights.

The argument I have made many times is that there is a reason for the rights to be there.

1) That the anti-federalists were concerned about certain freedoms.

2) That they were concerned about the powers in article 1 section 8 so they made the right to keep and bear arms for that purpose.

"I agree that perpetuating the general militia principle was the object of the 2nd Amendment but I do not believe that the federal recognition and protection of the right is qualified, conditioned or restricted to just that "purpose" (to use your word)."

Okay, so if they introduced the right in the Bill of Rights, was it so that individuals could have self defense or to protect the militia?

It's an important issue here.

If the principle was to protect the militia, how does individuals being protected in their carrying of arms protect the militia?

How does a militia where no individual has the protection to be in the militia survive if the federal government decides to do away with the militia?

"It is my argument that the RKBA exists because no power was granted to the feds to have any interest in the personal arms of the private citizen"

Then what of article 1 section 8 then?

Why were the anti-federalists pissing their pants about the feds doing away with the militia if there weren't these powers there in the first place?

Surely the anti-federalists saw something, and no doubt they saw it in article 1 section 8. The anti-federalists were arguing that if the feds wanted to destroy the militia, all they had to do was call up the militias and then do with them as they pleased.

That's article 1 section 8.

"Backwards thinking. The question is, how has the federal government been empowered to limit the protection of the RBKA to just militia action / function?"

Article 1 section 8

"Tools to build and maintain and secure what?

Liberty . . . "

And the anti-federalists and federalists saw THE MILITIA as the tool to secure this. No people walking around with guns on a daily basis.

"Books are also protected, the printing press is protected, speech is protected but nobody would ever argue that the protection of these objects and actions is limited to just the narrow political object of securing Liberty."

No, and no one is saying that the right to keep arms is just so the militia can have weapons.

However the right to bear arms is limited because it's the right to be in the militia.

It's like saying the right to free speech is limited because it doesn't protect your breathing, or protect you taking a dump in a field.

"The declaratory clause of the 2nd Amendment only re-affirms what once was a universally understood and accepted maxim;"

So you're saying that the 2A is disjointed?

That it makes a case for the militia to be the most important thing, and then talks about something completely different straight after? Why? Who would do something like that? There's no logic in that.

If you wanted to protect and individuals right to keep arms and to carry around with them whenever they choose, and for no reason, then don't include stuff that has nothing to do with this.

"that the armed citizenry dispenses with the need for a standing army (in times of peace) and those armed citizens stand as a barrier to foreign invasion and domestic tyranny (thus ensuring the free state)."

And quite clearly the anti-federalists feared that this militia would be taken from them by a bad mother fukka of a federal government. So they wanted to protect this militia. And they did. The Second Amendment.

"The Quakers were not objecting to militia service per se, they were pacifists as a principle in their entire life. They would not use a weapon to harm another person even to defend their own life. The larger, modern military has made allowances for such people permitting conscientious objectors to serve in non-combat positions. You are really, really, really over-reading the "religiously scrupulous" debate."

Not at all. The debate was there, Mr Gerry was at the forefront of this debate, and the records of this debate are there.

They feared the feds would declare people religiously scrupulous in order to destroy the militia. It's right there, I've shown you the evidence. How am I over reading this?

They had a clause in the future Second Amendment and took it out so that the Feds would not be able to prevent individuals from being in the militia.

That is also as clear as day. Or are you going to tell me that it doesn't exist? Or that they were just having a "fun day" in Congress.

"The Federalists recognized the dangers of a standing army but they argued that having a provision for establishing an army was necessary and that those fear could be mitigated. The Federalists thought some of the Anti-Federalist arguments were a bit silly."

Just as you think my argument is a bit silly. But you can't deny that this is what the anti-federalists though, and you can't deny that the Second Amendment came into being as a result of what the anti-federalists thought and wanted. Can you?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Gun control doesn't remove all the guns, that's another NRA scare tactics. That YOU fell for that is not a surprise.

Yes, preventing prisoners from having guns is gun control.

WTF are you talking about?

Why isn't the NRA upholding prisoners' right to have a gun? "shall not be infringed", not even in jail. But no, the NRA doesn't back prisoners, you know why? Because prisoners don't buy guns. the NRA is but a gun manufacturers lobby, and you pay for that, lol.

Dont be an idiot.

Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts.

Ah, the great tactic of insulting because you don't have anything.

I wouldn't put up with it Taz, these people will continue to use this tactic, day in, day out, then go tell their friends no one can beat them in an argument.

 

[Taz]

Yes, preventing prisoners from having guns is gun control.

WTF are you talking about?

Why isn't the NRA upholding prisoners' right to have a gun? "shall not be infringed", not even in jail. But no, the NRA doesn't back prisoners, you know why? Because prisoners don't buy guns. the NRA is but a gun manufacturers lobby, and you pay for that, lol.

Dont be an idiot.

Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts.

Ah, the great tactic of insulting because you don't have anything.

I wouldn't put up with it Taz, these people will continue to use this tactic, day in, day out, then go tell their friends no one can beat them in an argument.

It's like that in every thread I go into, lol.

 

[frigidweirdo]

WTF are you talking about?

Why isn't the NRA upholding prisoners' right to have a gun? "shall not be infringed", not even in jail. But no, the NRA doesn't back prisoners, you know why? Because prisoners don't buy guns. the NRA is but a gun manufacturers lobby, and you pay for that, lol.

Dont be an idiot.

Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts.

Ah, the great tactic of insulting because you don't have anything.

I wouldn't put up with it Taz, these people will continue to use this tactic, day in, day out, then go tell their friends no one can beat them in an argument.

It's like that in every thread I go into, lol.

Yeah, I know. But that's what the ignore button's for, then you don't see all of that.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Yes, preventing prisoners from having guns is gun control.

WTF are you talking about?

Why isn't the NRA upholding prisoners' right to have a gun? "shall not be infringed", not even in jail. But no, the NRA doesn't back prisoners, you know why? Because prisoners don't buy guns. the NRA is but a gun manufacturers lobby, and you pay for that, lol.

Dont be an idiot.

Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts.

Ah, the great tactic of insulting because you don't have anything.

I wouldn't put up with it Taz, these people will continue to use this tactic, day in, day out, then go tell their friends no one can beat them in an argument.

Yet another idiot who thinks prisoners should have firearms.

 

[Taz]

WTF are you talking about?

Why isn't the NRA upholding prisoners' right to have a gun? "shall not be infringed", not even in jail. But no, the NRA doesn't back prisoners, you know why? Because prisoners don't buy guns. the NRA is but a gun manufacturers lobby, and you pay for that, lol.

Dont be an idiot.

Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts.

Ah, the great tactic of insulting because you don't have anything.

I wouldn't put up with it Taz, these people will continue to use this tactic, day in, day out, then go tell their friends no one can beat them in an argument.

Yet another idiot who thinks prisoners should have firearms.

So you're an infringer just like me. Got it.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Why isn't the NRA upholding prisoners' right to have a gun? "shall not be infringed", not even in jail. But no, the NRA doesn't back prisoners, you know why? Because prisoners don't buy guns. the NRA is but a gun manufacturers lobby, and you pay for that, lol.

Dont be an idiot.

Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts.

Ah, the great tactic of insulting because you don't have anything.

I wouldn't put up with it Taz, these people will continue to use this tactic, day in, day out, then go tell their friends no one can beat them in an argument.

Yet another idiot who thinks prisoners should have firearms.

So you're an infringer just like me. Got it.

You're really getting your stupid on today.

 

[MarcATL]

You are, indeed, an idiot. I don't follow NRA policy. I know what the Constitution states and that is what I go with. Permits are a violation of the Bill of Rights..... just like Poll Taxes and Literacy tests were a violation when the democrats used them to prevent Blacks from voting. As Murdock v Pennsylvania stated, a Supreme Court ruling, you cannot tax the exercise of a Right. The NRA is not the final say on the Constitution you moron...again, the drinking and mixing it with your meds has made your head a fuzzy mess.... you need to stop.

Since you're such an anti-voter-restriction person, what do you say about the Republicans' constant efforts to suppress the black vote in Georgia and many states across the country...?

1. Proposal to close rural Georgia precincts soundly defeated
2. Ill-fated plan to close polling places in Georgia county recalled lingering prejudice
3. Ga. elections board votes against closing polling stations in majority-black county
4. An elections board decided not to close all but 2 polling places in a majority-black county in Georgia - CNN
5. Georgia County Votes To Keep Polling Places Open After Intense Scrutiny
6. Georgia County Rejects Plan to Close 7 Polling Places in Majority-Black Area

 

[MarcATL]

Between the 100 Club the NRA,and Wounded Warriors i'm about at my limit.

Wounded Warriors has been found to be a corrupt organization.

Do you know what percentage of their donations actually go to soldiers?

 

[Taz]

Dont be an idiot.

Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts.

Ah, the great tactic of insulting because you don't have anything.

I wouldn't put up with it Taz, these people will continue to use this tactic, day in, day out, then go tell their friends no one can beat them in an argument.

Yet another idiot who thinks prisoners should have firearms.

So you're an infringer just like me. Got it.

You're really getting your stupid on today.

So you advocate absolutely everyone should be able to have a gun, minors included? Because once you exclude any group of people, you're an infringer. It's just to what degree that you're willing to infringe on the 2nd.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Upgraded to lifetime member a few months ago and got a real nice waxed canvas briefcase / field bag.

I used it on a trip to New Haven CT just to watch all the liibie millennials around Yale have conniption fits

It's beyond stupid to think that one must agree with every policy of an organization before one contributes a rational person weighs the pros and cons and can find that for the few policies one does not like there may be many more that he feels are worthwhile.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts.

Ah, the great tactic of insulting because you don't have anything.

I wouldn't put up with it Taz, these people will continue to use this tactic, day in, day out, then go tell their friends no one can beat them in an argument.

Yet another idiot who thinks prisoners should have firearms.

So you're an infringer just like me. Got it.

You're really getting your stupid on today.

So you advocate absolutely everyone should be able to have a gun, minors included? Because once you exclude any group of people, you're an infringer. It's just to what degree that you're willing to infringe on the 2nd.

I'm not the one saying prisoners should be armed.
As far as age goes I've owned firearms since I was eight.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

 

[Taz]

Ah, the great tactic of insulting because you don't have anything.

I wouldn't put up with it Taz, these people will continue to use this tactic, day in, day out, then go tell their friends no one can beat them in an argument.

Yet another idiot who thinks prisoners should have firearms.

So you're an infringer just like me. Got it.

You're really getting your stupid on today.

So you advocate absolutely everyone should be able to have a gun, minors included? Because once you exclude any group of people, you're an infringer. It's just to what degree that you're willing to infringe on the 2nd.

I'm not the one saying prisoners should be armed.
As far as age goes I've owned firearms since I was eight.

Which makes you an infringer. I don't want prisoners armed either, so we're on the same page as infringers.

 

[Taz]

Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

No, the correct saying is: guns don't make people stupid, they're stupid already.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Yet another idiot who thinks prisoners should have firearms.

So you're an infringer just like me. Got it.

You're really getting your stupid on today.

So you advocate absolutely everyone should be able to have a gun, minors included? Because once you exclude any group of people, you're an infringer. It's just to what degree that you're willing to infringe on the 2nd.

I'm not the one saying prisoners should be armed.
As far as age goes I've owned firearms since I was eight.

Which makes you an infringer. I don't want prisoners armed either, so we're on the same page as infringers.

That you think you're making some kind of point here really makes you come off looking like a complete idiot.