What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The Right To Bear Arms

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
66,952
Reaction score
3,647
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
No, the militia is the people. The people need to be armed so the militia can be formed. The PEOPLE have the right to bear arms, not the militia.
Your substitution is a fallacy. Criminals of the People do not have a right to keep and bear Arms.

Well regulated militia of the whole and entire People (of which even You speak) have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
Not a substitution. I merely showed you that that PEOPLE have the right to bear arms, not the militia.

The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia.

Imagine the militia having the right to be in the militia.
Complete bullshit revision of history.

Minute Men had to purchase and maintain their own firearms to be ready for militia service when needed, which was their duty.

The right of people to keep those firearms was secured and guaranteed in the bill of rights and the authority withheld from the new federal government so the people would accept the new constitution.

Read the fucking federalist papers, for fuck's sake.
That was before our federal Constitution. Our Founding Fathers specifically put this in our federal Constitution:

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;
 

StormAl

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2021
Messages
1,744
Reaction score
979
Points
893
Wow, you really did skip English grammar and punctuation. Even more amusing is that you seem to relish boasting about your ignorance. Well, whatever floats your boat!

Says the guy with only ad hominems instead of valid arguments.

As you know, I provided concrete facts. You ignore it because you have your own agenda.

I am sorry you choose to ignore English and grammar the years you were in school. You knew how to talk, so what difference did the funny marks on the page make. That's your problem, no one elses.

punctuation-M.jpg
While you attack the messenger, you have lost the message in the meantime. Well regulated does not mean what you think it means.
If it weren't for fallacy, right wingers would have no arguments at all.
Right wing conservatism is a fallacy: politically, economically, and patriotically.
 

Lesh

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2016
Messages
24,786
Reaction score
7,317
Points
290
Read the fucking federalist papers, for fuck's sake.
The Federalist Papers were a rationalization used to push the acceptance of the Constitution to a skeptical public (mainly NY)...which ultimately failed since the number of NY delegates who were anti-Federalist ended up to be twice the number of Federalists.

It was propaganda...not law
 

StormAl

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2021
Messages
1,744
Reaction score
979
Points
893
Read the fucking federalist papers, for fuck's sake.
The Federalist Papers were a rationalization used to push the acceptance of the Constitution to a skeptical public (mainly NY)...which ultimately failed since the number of NY delegates who were anti-Federalist ended up to be twice the number of Federalists.

It was propaganda...not law
Yet NY ratified the Constitution, so the Papers purpose worked.
 

Lesh

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2016
Messages
24,786
Reaction score
7,317
Points
290
Yet NY ratified the Constitution, so the Papers purpose worked.
NY ratified in SPITE of them.

The Constitution already HAD 9 states so NY was simply acknowledging a fact.
 

Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
30,378
Reaction score
14,544
Points
1,600
Location
Tejas
Read the fucking federalist papers, for fuck's sake.
The Federalist Papers were a rationalization used to push the acceptance of the Constitution to a skeptical public (mainly NY)...which ultimately failed since the number of NY delegates who were anti-Federalist ended up to be twice the number of Federalists.

It was propaganda...not law
It shows intent of the founders.

If they were wrong, AMEND!!!

Why do you asshole have such a problem with the proper process?

What are you afraid of?
 

InspectorDetector

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2021
Messages
531
Reaction score
641
Points
493
No, the militia is the people. The people need to be armed so the militia can be formed. The PEOPLE have the right to bear arms, not the militia.
Your substitution is a fallacy. Criminals of the People do not have a right to keep and bear Arms.

Well regulated militia of the whole and entire People (of which even You speak) have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
Not a substitution. I merely showed you that that PEOPLE have the right to bear arms, not the militia.

The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia.

Imagine the militia having the right to be in the militia.
Complete bullshit revision of history.

Minute Men had to purchase and maintain their own firearms to be ready for militia service when needed, which was their duty.

The right of people to keep those firearms was secured and guaranteed in the bill of rights and the authority withheld from the new federal government so the people would accept the new constitution.

Read the fucking federalist papers, for fuck's sake.
That was before our federal Constitution. Our Founding Fathers specifically put this in our federal Constitution:

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;


Where does it state that?
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
9,669
Reaction score
2,460
Points
170
Location
New Mexico
No, the militia is the people. The people need to be armed so the militia can be formed. The PEOPLE have the right to bear arms, not the militia.
Your substitution is a fallacy. Criminals of the People do not have a right to keep and bear Arms.

Well regulated militia of the whole and entire People (of which even You speak) have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
Not a substitution. I merely showed you that that PEOPLE have the right to bear arms, not the militia.

The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia.

Imagine the militia having the right to be in the militia.
Complete bullshit revision of history.

Minute Men had to purchase and maintain their own firearms to be ready for militia service when needed, which was their duty.

The right of people to keep those firearms was secured and guaranteed in the bill of rights and the authority withheld from the new federal government so the people would accept the new constitution.

Read the fucking federalist papers, for fuck's sake.
That was before our federal Constitution. Our Founding Fathers specifically put this in our federal Constitution:

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;

Except that the federal use of calling up the organized militia for national defense is only a small part of what the militia is for. An armed population is for state defense and disasters, municipal defense, disasters, and posses, and for individual home protection. The federal use may never even happen in an average lifetime. The personal defense use will happen many times n an ordinary lifetime.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
9,669
Reaction score
2,460
Points
170
Location
New Mexico
Wow, you really did skip English grammar and punctuation. Even more amusing is that you seem to relish boasting about your ignorance. Well, whatever floats your boat!

Says the guy with only ad hominems instead of valid arguments.

As you know, I provided concrete facts. You ignore it because you have your own agenda.

I am sorry you choose to ignore English and grammar the years you were in school. You knew how to talk, so what difference did the funny marks on the page make. That's your problem, no one elses.

punctuation-M.jpg
While you attack the messenger, you have lost the message in the meantime. Well regulated does not mean what you think it means.
If it weren't for fallacy, right wingers would have no arguments at all.
Right wing conservatism is a fallacy: politically, economically, and patriotically.

This "Federalist Papers" thing is backwards.
The Federalists were the Hamilton and Madison crowd who wanted an extremely strong federal government, standing military, etc., and would likely have been all in favor of gun control.
The majority of the founders were anti-federalists, like Jefferson, did not want a strong federal government, did not want a standing military, and wanted an armed population instead.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
9,669
Reaction score
2,460
Points
170
Location
New Mexico
Where does it state that?
Article 1 Section 8 Clause 15 or 16

{... I. Section. 8., clauses 15 and 16: [The Congress shall have Power] To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; ...}

That says the militia is not created, owned, or controlled by the federal government except those rare occasions when they are "called forth", for defense against invasion.

The fact the feds have claim to be able to USE the militia, does in no way change the fact the feds are not supposed to be or own the militia. And that should be obvious since the feds are only for defense against the big stuff, insurrection and invasion. Over 99% of what you need force for is not federal. It is state, local, and individual.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
66,952
Reaction score
3,647
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
Read the fucking federalist papers, for fuck's sake.
The Federalist Papers were a rationalization used to push the acceptance of the Constitution to a skeptical public (mainly NY)...which ultimately failed since the number of NY delegates who were anti-Federalist ended up to be twice the number of Federalists.

It was propaganda...not law
Right wingers have a problem being legal to express law. They merely prefer to practice the abomination of hypocrisy in border threads.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
66,952
Reaction score
3,647
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
No, the militia is the people. The people need to be armed so the militia can be formed. The PEOPLE have the right to bear arms, not the militia.
Your substitution is a fallacy. Criminals of the People do not have a right to keep and bear Arms.

Well regulated militia of the whole and entire People (of which even You speak) have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
Not a substitution. I merely showed you that that PEOPLE have the right to bear arms, not the militia.

The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia.

Imagine the militia having the right to be in the militia.
Complete bullshit revision of history.

Minute Men had to purchase and maintain their own firearms to be ready for militia service when needed, which was their duty.

The right of people to keep those firearms was secured and guaranteed in the bill of rights and the authority withheld from the new federal government so the people would accept the new constitution.

Read the fucking federalist papers, for fuck's sake.
That was before our federal Constitution. Our Founding Fathers specifically put this in our federal Constitution:

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;


Where does it state that?
There is no appeal to ignorance of (Constitutional) law. Only right wingers never get it.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
66,952
Reaction score
3,647
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
No, the militia is the people. The people need to be armed so the militia can be formed. The PEOPLE have the right to bear arms, not the militia.
Your substitution is a fallacy. Criminals of the People do not have a right to keep and bear Arms.

Well regulated militia of the whole and entire People (of which even You speak) have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
Not a substitution. I merely showed you that that PEOPLE have the right to bear arms, not the militia.

The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia.

Imagine the militia having the right to be in the militia.
Complete bullshit revision of history.

Minute Men had to purchase and maintain their own firearms to be ready for militia service when needed, which was their duty.

The right of people to keep those firearms was secured and guaranteed in the bill of rights and the authority withheld from the new federal government so the people would accept the new constitution.

Read the fucking federalist papers, for fuck's sake.
That was before our federal Constitution. Our Founding Fathers specifically put this in our federal Constitution:

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;

Except that the federal use of calling up the organized militia for national defense is only a small part of what the militia is for. An armed population is for state defense and disasters, municipal defense, disasters, and posses, and for individual home protection. The federal use may never even happen in an average lifetime. The personal defense use will happen many times n an ordinary lifetime.
There is no appeal to ignorance of express law.

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia
 

Markle

Gold Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
21,690
Reaction score
5,221
Points
290
Location
Tallahassee, FL
Wow, you really did skip English grammar and punctuation. Even more amusing is that you seem to relish boasting about your ignorance. Well, whatever floats your boat!

Says the guy with only ad hominems instead of valid arguments.

How is this an "ad hominem" argument?

i-VbXqvcH-L.jpg
Argumentum ad hominem is a fallacy. You need a valid argument for rebuttal.

The English language, grammar and punctuation is NOT a valid argument? You really did skip grammar and punctuation in school, didn't you? But now you profess to be an authority on the English language? Really?
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
66,952
Reaction score
3,647
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
Wow, you really did skip English grammar and punctuation. Even more amusing is that you seem to relish boasting about your ignorance. Well, whatever floats your boat!

Says the guy with only ad hominems instead of valid arguments.

How is this an "ad hominem" argument?

i-VbXqvcH-L.jpg
Argumentum ad hominem is a fallacy. You need a valid argument for rebuttal.

The English language, grammar and punctuation is NOT a valid argument? You really did skip grammar and punctuation in school, didn't you? But now you profess to be an authority on the English language? Really?
Yes, it is when you merely claim your unsubstantiated opinion without supporting it with a valid argument.

Where does it say you can ignore the first clause due to a comma?
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$350.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top