CDZ The second amendment allows for multiple use under the keep and bear doctrine.

[2aguy]

If you're just going to completely ignore the videos I posted of Rep. Raskin decimating your argument then why should I bother to waste my time trying to convince you? Raskin is a Constitutional expert and scholar. What are you?

He doesn't decimate anything....he simply repeats the same dumb points you anti-gunners have been using over and over again, making things up about the Founders and the 2nd Amendment.......

Again, we know exactly what the Founders believed when they created the 2nd Amendment....we know because they told us in all of their writings.........he ignores that......

 

[2aguy]

If you're just going to completely ignore the videos I posted of Rep. Raskin decimating your argument then why should I bother to waste my time trying to convince you? Raskin is a Constitutional expert and scholar. What are you?

I wonder.....did Rep. Raskin ever read this....you know, by a few of our Founding Fathers....?

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
------

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.-

Declaration of Independence: A Transcription

Note: The following text is a transcription of the Stone Engraving of the parchment Declaration of Independence (the document on display in the Rotunda at the National Archives Museum.) The spelling and punctuation reflects the original.

www.archives.gov

I wonder if the Founders considered how you would do the above if only the government had access to guns?

 

[2aguy]

Lawrence Tribe is Professor Emeritus of CONSTITUTIONAL LAW at Harvard. He was Barack Obama's professor. He was Ted Cruz' professor. He was the professor to nearly all of the SCOTUS Justices, and also Merrick Garland. Any prominent figure in government who is a lawyer who went to Harvard learned Constitutional Law from Professor Tribe.

The Declaration of Independence did this......maybe Rep. Raskin has heard of this obscure American document...........

The Constitution simply set up the limited powers of the Federal Government....the Declaration stated our job to throw off bad government....

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
------

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.-

 

[Open Bolt]

If you're just going to completely ignore the videos I posted of Rep. Raskin decimating your argument then why should I bother to waste my time trying to convince you?

You posted two videos. One dealt with a subject that is completely unrelated to my position, so I disregarded it. Discussion of that subject is just not a rabbit hole that I choose to go down very often.

The other video was an outright lie. I did not ignore it in any way. I clearly denounced the lie.

Convincing me would require facts, which you do not have. Your time would be better spent accepting the fact that Raskin is a liar.

Raskin is a Constitutional expert and scholar. What are you?

Well first, note that appeals to authority are logical fallacies.

But to answer your question, Raskin is a liar. I am someone who tells the truth.

 

[JGalt]

 

[ralfy]

I prefer the original text:

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.

This Amendment was a specific prohibition against the newly created federal government infringing on the people's right to keep and bear arms. I don't see how any Lefty can argue with this.

It's that and two more: gives states the power to form their own armed groups, and gives the federal government the power to draw personnel from the same states to supplement the standing army.

One more thing: the states may also abridge the right for valid reasons given the Tenth Amendment.

 

[ralfy]

That is a crackpot theory that has never been taken seriously.

I wouldn't call it a significant competing interpretation.



America could have had a standing army from the start if we wanted to. Relying on the militia was a conscious choice.

It's actually seen in the notes by framers as they were making several drafts of the Second.

About the standing army, they found it too costly, so they settled for a small one to be supplemented by militias supplied by the states.

 

[ralfy]

View attachment 676858

He and others also started complaining about the quality of militias, especially given the point that wars were involving more sophisticated equipment, mass maneuvers, more training, etc.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Also excellent.

Which "gun safety restrictions" were before the court in Heller, and which of those regulations were upheld?

 

[M14 Shooter]

The only thing that matters is the Constitution.

Apparently, you haven't read Heller, McDonald, Caetano, or Bruen.
You're not smart.

 

[Synthaholic]

Well first, note that appeals to authority are logical fallacies.

It's an appeal to expertise. Raskin has it.

 

[Open Bolt]

It's actually seen in the notes by framers as they were making several drafts of the Second.

No Founding Father ever took a position that the right to keep and bear arms belongs to states and not individuals.

About the standing army, they found it too costly, so they settled for a small one to be supplemented by militias supplied by the states.

Cost had nothing to do with it. They avoided having a standing army because they feared it would lead to tyranny.

 

[Open Bolt]

It's an appeal to expertise.

Still a logical fallacy.

Raskin has it.

I don't know about that. But it doesn't really matter. He's still lying.

And what really matters here is the fact that he is lying.

 

[Synthaholic]

Still a logical fallacy.



I don't know about that. But it doesn't really matter. He's still lying.

And what really matters here is the fact that he is lying.

No, deferring to expertise is not fallacy. Do you get your medical advice from your car mechanic? Does your doctor tell you what is wrong with your engine?

And you have been unable to even articulate how Raskin is supposedly lying, never mind prove it.

 

[Open Bolt]

No, deferring to expertise is not fallacy. Do you get your medical advice from your car mechanic? Does your doctor tell you what is wrong with your engine?

When engaged in logical debate, you present arguments to support your position instead of saying that reality is whatever a proclaimed expert says it is.

And you have been unable to even articulate how Raskin is supposedly lying, never mind prove it.

Nonsense. I did that in my initial response to this Raskin liar. Post #49.

Here it is again:

The progressive is lying. Justice Scalaia never said that it was OK to pass unconstitutional laws.

Since existing regulations have clearly been sufficient to prevent any assault weapon that is legally-owned by an American civilian from ever being used to commit a crime, more restrictive laws are unconstitutional.

 

[ralfy]

No Founding Father ever took a position that the right to keep and bear arms belongs to states and not individuals.



Cost had nothing to do with it. They avoided having a standing army because they feared it would lead to tyranny.

That's not my point: it's that states also wanted their own militias.

Your second point makes no sense because they had a Continental Army.

 

[jasonnfree]

I've posted before that the 2nd Amendment says 'a well regulated militia'. That militia has never mustered and probably never will. In the mean time, we have more guns than people in this country and the guns are getting more and more powerful and deadly. How many more Uvalde school children type massacres will happen before we say enough is enough?

 

[Frankeneinstein]

But this is the one that no one can refute. I love it!

That was nothing more than a rant, most anti-gun arguments on this forum carry more academic articulation then that farce...there was nothing at all intellectual about that...he just knew how to play to those with a social education, he fooled no one with an academic education.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

If the second amendment was written in reverse with the keep and bear doctrine contingent upon the militia doctrine I could understand the wussy crying of Lefty. But it's not written that way.

Because a well regulated militia is a necessary item for a free people to remain free they ..( the people).. are allowed to keep and bear arms. That in no way implies that the arms are limited to militia use.

Remember that a square is a rhombus but a rhombus is not a square.

Jo

But always also remember......

Tyrants don't give a damn what you or the Constitution might think or say.

"All that is required for evil men to prevail is for Right Wing (men) to do nothing"

 

[Open Bolt]

That's not my point: it's that states also wanted their own militias.

They already had their own militias.

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

Your second point makes no sense because they had a Continental Army.

They disbanded the Continental Army in 1783.