# The 2nd Amendment (Why we our Founders wrote it)



## ding

The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"_f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." 

- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"

Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it._


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Nowhere in the history, text, or case law of the Second Amendment will one find any reference to the Second Amendment 'trumping' the First Amendment, or authorizing the Second Amendment to abridge the First Amendment right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances through either the political process or the judicial process.

That a minority of citizens might subjectively and in error perceive government to have become 'tyrannical' in no manner 'justifies' that minority to 'take up arms' against a government lawfully sanctioned by a majority of the people, where government is indeed functioning in accordance with the Constitution and its case law.

There must first be consensus and agreement among the people through the political and democratic process as to what constitutes actual 'tyranny,' and that, consistent with that consensus, the government is in fact 'tyrannical' - then and only then might 'taking up arms' be warranted and lawful.


----------



## frigidweirdo

ding said:


> The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.
> 
> "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> "_f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
> 
> - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.
> 
> "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"
> 
> Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"
> 
> The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.
> 
> "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
> 
> "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
> 
> "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it._



Firstly the right to bear arms doesn't give you an armed populace. That's the right to keep arms. The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. 

i.e., the militia with citizen soldiers, that means you need people with the guns for the militia, and you need people to use the guns in the militia.


----------



## ding

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Nowhere in the history, text, or case law of the Second Amendment will one find any reference to the Second Amendment 'trumping' the First Amendment, or authorizing the Second Amendment to abridge the First Amendment right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances through either the political process or the judicial process.



No one said it did, but that also works the other way too.  Nowhere in the history, text, or case law of the First Amendment will one find any reference to the First Amendment 'trumping' the Second Amendment, or authorizing the First Amendment to abridge the Second Amendment right of the people to bear arms.  One right does not trump another.  Rights, are not given or granted they exist by simply being, and they impose nothing upon another. When the exercise of a right imposes upon another, one has exceeded the natural limitations of that right.


----------



## ding

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> That a minority of citizens might subjectively and in error perceive government to have become 'tyrannical' in no manner 'justifies' that minority to 'take up arms' against a government lawfully sanctioned by a majority of the people, where government is indeed functioning in accordance with the Constitution and its case law.



First of all that was exactly how this nation was founded.  Please see the Declaration of Independence for the authority cited to do so.  Secondly, If said government is indeed functioning in accordance with the Constitution, then there won't be a problem.  And lastly, there is ample evidence which proves that Founding Father's intention was for the 2nd Amendment to serve as a last check against a tyrannical government with a standing army despite your above objections.  Please see the OP for this proof.


----------



## ding

frigidweirdo said:


> Firstly the right to bear arms doesn't give you an armed populace. That's the right to keep arms. The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia.
> 
> i.e., the militia with citizen soldiers, that means you need people with the guns for the militia, and you need people to use the guns in the militia.


I believe you are splitting hairs that were not meant to be split.

_“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788_


----------



## frigidweirdo

ding said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly the right to bear arms doesn't give you an armed populace. That's the right to keep arms. The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia.
> 
> i.e., the militia with citizen soldiers, that means you need people with the guns for the militia, and you need people to use the guns in the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you are splitting hairs that were not meant to be split.
> 
> _“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788_
Click to expand...


I find on this topic there is a mass of disinformation and looking the wrong way deliberately. I'm not splitting hairs, you said it wrong and I'm happy to point people in the right direction, even if most of the times people ignore it. 

The right to keep arms is the right to own weapons so the militia will have a ready supply of weapons in times of need.
The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia so the militia will have a ready supply of personnel to use those weapons in times of need.

There's no splitting hairs. Just fact.


----------



## ding

frigidweirdo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly the right to bear arms doesn't give you an armed populace. That's the right to keep arms. The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia.
> 
> i.e., the militia with citizen soldiers, that means you need people with the guns for the militia, and you need people to use the guns in the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you are splitting hairs that were not meant to be split.
> 
> _“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find on this topic there is a mass of disinformation and looking the wrong way deliberately. I'm not splitting hairs, you said it wrong and I'm happy to point people in the right direction, even if most of the times people ignore it.
> 
> The right to keep arms is the right to own weapons so the militia will have a ready supply of weapons in times of need.
> The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia so the militia will have a ready supply of personnel to use those weapons in times of need.
> 
> There's no splitting hairs. Just fact.
Click to expand...

I disagree.  _To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

No where here does it say have access or have a ready supply.  It literally says possess.

possess: have as belonging to one; own.

Furthermore, at the time of ratification, how did they have a ready supply if it were not for each citizen owning his own weapon?_


----------



## ding

frigidweirdo said:


> I find on this topic there is a mass of disinformation and looking the wrong way deliberately. I'm not splitting hairs, you said it wrong and I'm happy to point people in the right direction, even if most of the times people ignore it.
> 
> The right to keep arms is the right to own weapons so the militia will have a ready supply of weapons in times of need.
> The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia so the militia will have a ready supply of personnel to use those weapons in times of need.
> 
> There's no splitting hairs. Just fact.


How do you reconcile this testimony to the intention of the 2nd Amendment?

_"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"

Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

Furthermore, if the people are not supposed to keep their own arms, who will? the government?  They are the ones the Founding Fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment to protect us from, right?_


----------



## frigidweirdo

ding said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly the right to bear arms doesn't give you an armed populace. That's the right to keep arms. The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia.
> 
> i.e., the militia with citizen soldiers, that means you need people with the guns for the militia, and you need people to use the guns in the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you are splitting hairs that were not meant to be split.
> 
> _“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find on this topic there is a mass of disinformation and looking the wrong way deliberately. I'm not splitting hairs, you said it wrong and I'm happy to point people in the right direction, even if most of the times people ignore it.
> 
> The right to keep arms is the right to own weapons so the militia will have a ready supply of weapons in times of need.
> The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia so the militia will have a ready supply of personnel to use those weapons in times of need.
> 
> There's no splitting hairs. Just fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I disagree.  _To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> No where here does it say have access or have a ready supply.  It literally says possess.
> 
> possess: have as belonging to one; own.
> 
> Furthermore, at the time of ratification, how did they have a ready supply if it were not for each citizen owning his own weapon?_
Click to expand...


I'm sorry, but throwing quotes at me doesn't change a thing.

Read this and come back to me: Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution


----------



## frigidweirdo

ding said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find on this topic there is a mass of disinformation and looking the wrong way deliberately. I'm not splitting hairs, you said it wrong and I'm happy to point people in the right direction, even if most of the times people ignore it.
> 
> The right to keep arms is the right to own weapons so the militia will have a ready supply of weapons in times of need.
> The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia so the militia will have a ready supply of personnel to use those weapons in times of need.
> 
> There's no splitting hairs. Just fact.
> 
> 
> 
> How do you reconcile this testimony to the intention of the 2nd Amendment?
> 
> _"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"
> 
> Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"
> 
> Furthermore, if the people are not supposed to keep their own arms, who will? the government?  They are the ones the Founding Fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment to protect us from, right?_
Click to expand...


Because you're talking about the right to keep arms, not the right to bear arms. You stated the right to bear arms was the right to own weapons, it's not. That's clearly the right to keep arms.


----------



## ding

frigidweirdo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find on this topic there is a mass of disinformation and looking the wrong way deliberately. I'm not splitting hairs, you said it wrong and I'm happy to point people in the right direction, even if most of the times people ignore it.
> 
> The right to keep arms is the right to own weapons so the militia will have a ready supply of weapons in times of need.
> The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia so the militia will have a ready supply of personnel to use those weapons in times of need.
> 
> There's no splitting hairs. Just fact.
> 
> 
> 
> How do you reconcile this testimony to the intention of the 2nd Amendment?
> 
> _"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"
> 
> Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"
> 
> Furthermore, if the people are not supposed to keep their own arms, who will? the government?  They are the ones the Founding Fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment to protect us from, right?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because you're talking about the right to keep arms, not the right to bear arms. You stated the right to bear arms was the right to own weapons, it's not. That's clearly the right to keep arms.
Click to expand...

I disagree.  Are you telling me that the government should be responsible for keeping these arms?  How does that make any sense?


----------



## ding

frigidweirdo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly the right to bear arms doesn't give you an armed populace. That's the right to keep arms. The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia.
> 
> i.e., the militia with citizen soldiers, that means you need people with the guns for the militia, and you need people to use the guns in the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you are splitting hairs that were not meant to be split.
> 
> _“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find on this topic there is a mass of disinformation and looking the wrong way deliberately. I'm not splitting hairs, you said it wrong and I'm happy to point people in the right direction, even if most of the times people ignore it.
> 
> The right to keep arms is the right to own weapons so the militia will have a ready supply of weapons in times of need.
> The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia so the militia will have a ready supply of personnel to use those weapons in times of need.
> 
> There's no splitting hairs. Just fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I disagree.  _To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> No where here does it say have access or have a ready supply.  It literally says possess.
> 
> possess: have as belonging to one; own.
> 
> Furthermore, at the time of ratification, how did they have a ready supply if it were not for each citizen owning his own weapon?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but throwing quotes at me doesn't change a thing.
> 
> Read this and come back to me: Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
Click to expand...

I'm not throwing quotes at you.  I am showing you what the intent was of the Framers.  Clearly the intent of the 2nd Amendment was to protect us from a standing army of a tyrannical government, right?  How does it make sense to have that government be the keeper of arms?


----------



## ding

frigidweirdo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find on this topic there is a mass of disinformation and looking the wrong way deliberately. I'm not splitting hairs, you said it wrong and I'm happy to point people in the right direction, even if most of the times people ignore it.
> 
> The right to keep arms is the right to own weapons so the militia will have a ready supply of weapons in times of need.
> The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia so the militia will have a ready supply of personnel to use those weapons in times of need.
> 
> There's no splitting hairs. Just fact.
> 
> 
> 
> How do you reconcile this testimony to the intention of the 2nd Amendment?
> 
> _"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"
> 
> Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"
> 
> Furthermore, if the people are not supposed to keep their own arms, who will? the government?  They are the ones the Founding Fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment to protect us from, right?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because you're talking about the right to keep arms, not the right to bear arms. You stated the right to bear arms was the right to own weapons, it's not. That's clearly the right to keep arms.
Click to expand...

Are we done here?


----------



## ding

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Nowhere in the history, text, or case law of the Second Amendment will one find any reference to the Second Amendment 'trumping' the First Amendment, or authorizing the Second Amendment to abridge the First Amendment right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances through either the political process or the judicial process.
> 
> That a minority of citizens might subjectively and in error perceive government to have become 'tyrannical' in no manner 'justifies' that minority to 'take up arms' against a government lawfully sanctioned by a majority of the people, where government is indeed functioning in accordance with the Constitution and its case law.
> 
> There must first be consensus and agreement among the people through the political and democratic process as to what constitutes actual 'tyranny,' and that, consistent with that consensus, the government is in fact 'tyrannical' - then and only then might 'taking up arms' be warranted and lawful.


I know we are done here, so there is no need to ask you.


----------



## frigidweirdo

ding said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find on this topic there is a mass of disinformation and looking the wrong way deliberately. I'm not splitting hairs, you said it wrong and I'm happy to point people in the right direction, even if most of the times people ignore it.
> 
> The right to keep arms is the right to own weapons so the militia will have a ready supply of weapons in times of need.
> The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia so the militia will have a ready supply of personnel to use those weapons in times of need.
> 
> There's no splitting hairs. Just fact.
> 
> 
> 
> How do you reconcile this testimony to the intention of the 2nd Amendment?
> 
> _"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"
> 
> Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"
> 
> Furthermore, if the people are not supposed to keep their own arms, who will? the government?  They are the ones the Founding Fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment to protect us from, right?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because you're talking about the right to keep arms, not the right to bear arms. You stated the right to bear arms was the right to own weapons, it's not. That's clearly the right to keep arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I disagree.  Are you telling me that the government should be responsible for keeping these arms?  How does that make any sense?
Click to expand...


No, I didn't say anything of the sort. 

It's not hard. People have the right to own guns. They have the right to be in the militia. The reason they have these rights is so the militia will be protected from the federal govt's ability to arm, and therefore disarm, the militia.


----------



## frigidweirdo

ding said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly the right to bear arms doesn't give you an armed populace. That's the right to keep arms. The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia.
> 
> i.e., the militia with citizen soldiers, that means you need people with the guns for the militia, and you need people to use the guns in the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you are splitting hairs that were not meant to be split.
> 
> _“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find on this topic there is a mass of disinformation and looking the wrong way deliberately. I'm not splitting hairs, you said it wrong and I'm happy to point people in the right direction, even if most of the times people ignore it.
> 
> The right to keep arms is the right to own weapons so the militia will have a ready supply of weapons in times of need.
> The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia so the militia will have a ready supply of personnel to use those weapons in times of need.
> 
> There's no splitting hairs. Just fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I disagree.  _To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> No where here does it say have access or have a ready supply.  It literally says possess.
> 
> possess: have as belonging to one; own.
> 
> Furthermore, at the time of ratification, how did they have a ready supply if it were not for each citizen owning his own weapon?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but throwing quotes at me doesn't change a thing.
> 
> Read this and come back to me: Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not throwing quotes at you.  I am showing you what the intent was of the Framers.  Clearly the intent of the 2nd Amendment was to protect us from a standing army of a tyrannical government, right?  How does it make sense to have that government be the keeper of arms?
Click to expand...


One founder, and not necessarily using the quote properly either. 

Yes, the intent of the 2A was to protect the people from a tyrannical govt. However you keep misreading what I'm writing. So you're arguing with what you think I should be saying, and not what I am saying.


----------



## frigidweirdo

ding said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find on this topic there is a mass of disinformation and looking the wrong way deliberately. I'm not splitting hairs, you said it wrong and I'm happy to point people in the right direction, even if most of the times people ignore it.
> 
> The right to keep arms is the right to own weapons so the militia will have a ready supply of weapons in times of need.
> The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia so the militia will have a ready supply of personnel to use those weapons in times of need.
> 
> There's no splitting hairs. Just fact.
> 
> 
> 
> How do you reconcile this testimony to the intention of the 2nd Amendment?
> 
> _"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"
> 
> Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"
> 
> Furthermore, if the people are not supposed to keep their own arms, who will? the government?  They are the ones the Founding Fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment to protect us from, right?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because you're talking about the right to keep arms, not the right to bear arms. You stated the right to bear arms was the right to own weapons, it's not. That's clearly the right to keep arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are we done here?
Click to expand...


Do you understand the concept? Then we can be done when you've got it.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Whether the Second Amendment enshrines the right to ‘keep’ arms or ‘bear’ arms, in either case it refers to an individual right pursuant to the right of self-defense, not a ‘right’ to ‘overthrow’ the government because one subjectively ‘thinks’ or ‘feels’ that the government has become ‘tyrannical.’


----------



## Boss

frigidweirdo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.
> 
> "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> "_f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
> 
> - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.
> 
> "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"
> 
> Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"
> 
> The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.
> 
> "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
> 
> "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
> 
> "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly the right to bear arms doesn't give you an armed populace. That's the right to keep arms. The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia.
> 
> i.e., the militia with citizen soldiers, that means you need people with the guns for the militia, and you need people to use the guns in the militia.
Click to expand...


The OP specifically posted relevant portions of the Federalist Papers explaining to you what the 2nd Amendment means. You simply ignored that and applied your own left-wing interpretation. You're just fucking wrong.


----------



## Boss

frigidweirdo said:


> The right to keep arms is the right to own weapons so the militia will have a ready supply of weapons in times of need.



No it's not. This is made clear in Federalist 28.


----------



## Boss

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Whether the Second Amendment enshrines the right to ‘keep’ arms or ‘bear’ arms, in either case it refers to an individual right pursuant to the right of self-defense, not a ‘right’ to ‘overthrow’ the government because one subjectively ‘thinks’ or ‘feels’ that the government has become ‘tyrannical.’



No one said anything about "thinks" or "feels" and that was never any argument made by 2nd Amendment advocates. So where does this come from, other than your pea brain?


----------



## Skull Pilot

frigidweirdo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.
> 
> "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> "_f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
> 
> - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.
> 
> "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"
> 
> Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"
> 
> The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.
> 
> "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
> 
> "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
> 
> "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly the right to bear arms doesn't give you an armed populace. That's the right to keep arms. The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia.
> 
> i.e., the militia with citizen soldiers, that means you need people with the guns for the militia, and you need people to use the guns in the militia.
Click to expand...


The right to bear arms is not predicated on being in a militia


----------



## Boss

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> ...in either case it refers to *an individual right pursuant to the right of self-defense*...



False. It's not about self defense. It's in order to form a well-regulated militia. A well-regulated militia is the best defense against a tyrannical government. 

You have to understand, our framers established a small limited government. They realized that such a government would be extremely vulnerable to attack from enemies abroad or within. Should such a thing happen, they put in place a 2nd Amendment so that the populace would always be armed and ready to secure their liberty again.


----------



## IsaacNewton

The intention of the 2nd amendment when it was written, which was to allow a citizenry to protect itself against a government that became tyrannical is a moot point today and has been for over 100 years. 

The weapons owned by citizens in 1776 were flintlocks and cannons, identical to what the government had. 

Today the most powerful weapon a citizen can own is a semi-auto rifle. The government has fully auto small and heavy machine guns, a gigantic navy, a huge air force with thousands of attack aircraft and helicopters, thousands of tanks, missiles, and nuclear weapons. Our military can beat all the rest of the world combined by themselves. 

Stop with this 'minuteman' fantasy. That dream ended more than a century ago and to cling to it only leaves the citizenry in a woefully untenable position. Find an argument that isn't laughable.


----------



## Boss

IsaacNewton said:


> The intention of the 2nd amendment when it was written, which was to allow a citizenry to protect itself against a government that became tyrannical is a moot point today and has been for over 100 years.
> 
> The weapons owned by citizens in 1776 were flintlocks and cannons, identical to what the government had.
> 
> Today the most powerful weapon a citizen can own is a semi-auto rifle. The government has fully auto small and heavy machine guns, a gigantic navy, a huge air force with thousands of attack aircraft and helicopters, thousands of tanks, missiles, and nuclear weapons. Our military can beat all the rest of the world combined by themselves.
> 
> Stop with this 'minuteman' fantasy. That dream ended more than a century ago and to cling to it only leaves the citizenry in a woefully untenable position. Find an argument that isn't laughable.



Well this is yet another anti-gun argument that has been repeatedly debunked but just keeps on being thrown out there.  

200 million Americans owning 350 million guns is no match for the US Government. What would they do... nuke their entire population? What would be the point in that? So no... they're never going to disarm us and we would eventually take our country back from a tyrannical coup. 

Now... no one has some fucked up fantasy that a bunch of Tea Party gun owners are going to Washington to "take back the country" from the likes of Hillary or Obama... I know you're concerned that might happen if you libtards get too big for your britches but that's not going to happen and not what anyone is talking about happening.... except for you.  We'll defeat YOU at the ballot box. 

Now going back to touch on your argument about the archaic weaponry of the time.... you do realize people were allowed to own cannons, right? In fact, the US Government routinely hired private gun boats to patrol the Eastern seaboard, which were armed with rather large cannons capable of decimating entire cities. These were literally the WMDs of their time and individual citizens had every right to own them.


----------



## IsaacNewton

Boss said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> The intention of the 2nd amendment when it was written, which was to allow a citizenry to protect itself against a government that became tyrannical is a moot point today and has been for over 100 years.
> 
> The weapons owned by citizens in 1776 were flintlocks and cannons, identical to what the government had.
> 
> Today the most powerful weapon a citizen can own is a semi-auto rifle. The government has fully auto small and heavy machine guns, a gigantic navy, a huge air force with thousands of attack aircraft and helicopters, thousands of tanks, missiles, and nuclear weapons. Our military can beat all the rest of the world combined by themselves.
> 
> Stop with this 'minuteman' fantasy. That dream ended more than a century ago and to cling to it only leaves the citizenry in a woefully untenable position. Find an argument that isn't laughable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well this is yet another anti-gun argument that has been repeatedly debunked but just keeps on being thrown out there.
> 
> 200 million Americans owning 350 million guns is no match for the US Government. What would they do... nuke their entire population? What would be the point in that? So no... they're never going to disarm us and we would eventually take our country back from a tyrannical coup.
> 
> Now... no one has some fucked up fantasy that a bunch of Tea Party gun owners are going to Washington to "take back the country" from the likes of Hillary or Obama... I know you're concerned that might happen if you libtards get too big for your britches but that's not going to happen and not what anyone is talking about happening.... except for you.  We'll defeat YOU at the ballot box.
> 
> Now going back to touch on your argument about the archaic weaponry of the time.... you do realize people were allowed to own cannons, right? In fact, the US Government routinely hired private gun boats to patrol the Eastern seaboard, which were armed with rather large cannons capable of decimating entire cities. These were literally the WMDs of their time and individual citizens had every right to own them.
Click to expand...


I'd like one time, just once, for a conservative to actually read a post. Not just the first three words and then twitch into nuclear YOUR WRONG convulsions and vomit online. I said they had muskets and cannons if you read the post. 

It's simple, you believe 200 million people armed with semi or automatic AR-15s can defeat thousands of M1A1 tanks and helicopters. 

I wish you well in your fantasy.


----------



## Boss

IsaacNewton said:


> It's simple, you believe 200 million people armed with semi or automatic AR-15s can defeat thousands of M1A1 tanks and helicopters.



I don't think you have any concept of 350 million guns.


----------



## Boss

IsaacNewton said:


> It's simple, you believe 200 million people armed with semi or automatic AR-15s can defeat thousands of M1A1 tanks and helicopters.



Okay... Let's play out the scenario here... Let's imagine some tyrannical coup overtakes the government. The 200 million armed with their 350 million guns rise up. Who is going to man the tanks and helicopters? Do you think US servicemen are going to remain loyal under the new tyrant? Or would most of them abandon their posts and join the revolution? How quickly do you think the people would secure the National Guard armories and military bases around the country? 

Before your tyrant could roll out the first tank, the revolution would already have most of our military arsenal under it's control. The whole thing would be over before it started.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Skull Pilot said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.
> 
> "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> "_f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
> 
> - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.
> 
> "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"
> 
> Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"
> 
> The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.
> 
> "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
> 
> "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
> 
> "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly the right to bear arms doesn't give you an armed populace. That's the right to keep arms. The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia.
> 
> i.e., the militia with citizen soldiers, that means you need people with the guns for the militia, and you need people to use the guns in the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to bear arms is not predicated on being in a militia
Click to expand...


Did I say it was? No, I didn't.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

IsaacNewton said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> The intention of the 2nd amendment when it was written, which was to allow a citizenry to protect itself against a government that became tyrannical is a moot point today and has been for over 100 years.
> 
> The weapons owned by citizens in 1776 were flintlocks and cannons, identical to what the government had.
> 
> Today the most powerful weapon a citizen can own is a semi-auto rifle. The government has fully auto small and heavy machine guns, a gigantic navy, a huge air force with thousands of attack aircraft and helicopters, thousands of tanks, missiles, and nuclear weapons. Our military can beat all the rest of the world combined by themselves.
> 
> Stop with this 'minuteman' fantasy. That dream ended more than a century ago and to cling to it only leaves the citizenry in a woefully untenable position. Find an argument that isn't laughable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well this is yet another anti-gun argument that has been repeatedly debunked but just keeps on being thrown out there.
> 
> 200 million Americans owning 350 million guns is no match for the US Government. What would they do... nuke their entire population? What would be the point in that? So no... they're never going to disarm us and we would eventually take our country back from a tyrannical coup.
> 
> Now... no one has some fucked up fantasy that a bunch of Tea Party gun owners are going to Washington to "take back the country" from the likes of Hillary or Obama... I know you're concerned that might happen if you libtards get too big for your britches but that's not going to happen and not what anyone is talking about happening.... except for you.  We'll defeat YOU at the ballot box.
> 
> Now going back to touch on your argument about the archaic weaponry of the time.... you do realize people were allowed to own cannons, right? In fact, the US Government routinely hired private gun boats to patrol the Eastern seaboard, which were armed with rather large cannons capable of decimating entire cities. These were literally the WMDs of their time and individual citizens had every right to own them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd like one time, just once, for a conservative to actually read a post. Not just the first three words and then twitch into nuclear YOUR WRONG convulsions and vomit online. I said they had muskets and cannons if you read the post.
> 
> It's simple, you believe 200 million people armed with semi or automatic AR-15s can defeat thousands of M1A1 tanks and helicopters.
> 
> I wish you well in your fantasy.
Click to expand...

Correct, it is a pathetic fantasy.

And it’s a fantasy wholly unsupported by the law.


----------



## westwall

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Nowhere in the history, text, or case law of the Second Amendment will one find any reference to the Second Amendment 'trumping' the First Amendment, or authorizing the Second Amendment to abridge the First Amendment right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances through either the political process or the judicial process.
> 
> That a minority of citizens might subjectively and in error perceive government to have become 'tyrannical' in no manner 'justifies' that minority to 'take up arms' against a government lawfully sanctioned by a majority of the people, where government is indeed functioning in accordance with the Constitution and its case law.
> 
> There must first be consensus and agreement among the people through the political and democratic process as to what constitutes actual 'tyranny,' and that, consistent with that consensus, the government is in fact 'tyrannical' - then and only then might 'taking up arms' be warranted and lawful.








Of course you won't.  The Bill of Rights is nine limitations on what government can do to the PEOPLE, and one, final option.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Boss said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.
> 
> "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> "_f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
> 
> - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.
> 
> "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"
> 
> Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"
> 
> The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.
> 
> "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
> 
> "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
> 
> "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly the right to bear arms doesn't give you an armed populace. That's the right to keep arms. The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia.
> 
> i.e., the militia with citizen soldiers, that means you need people with the guns for the militia, and you need people to use the guns in the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The OP specifically posted relevant portions of the Federalist Papers explaining to you what the 2nd Amendment means. You simply ignored that and applied your own left-wing interpretation. You're just fucking wrong.
Click to expand...

Only the Supreme Court can determine what the Constitution means, including the Second Amendment.

And there was nothing in the OP justifying that the will of the majority of the people could be ignored because a minority incorrectly and subjectively perceives the government to have become ‘tyrannical,’ authorizing ‘armed rebellion.’

Indeed, there are rightwing idiots who currently propagate the ridiculous lie that the government has become ‘tyrannical.’


----------



## Tennyson

frigidweirdo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.
> 
> "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> "_f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
> 
> - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.
> 
> "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"
> 
> Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"
> 
> The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.
> 
> "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
> 
> "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
> 
> "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly the right to bear arms doesn't give you an armed populace. That's the right to keep arms. The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia.
> 
> i.e., the militia with citizen soldiers, that means you need people with the guns for the militia, and you need people to use the guns in the militia.
Click to expand...


You are overlooking that the militia clause is the prefatory clause and the right to bear arms is the operative clause. The use of the indefinite articles "a" and "an" in Article I, Section 8 and the Second Amendment are precise and intentional. The collective right to arms is in Article I, § 8, Clause 15, which was supported in Presser v Illinois, and the individual right is in the operative clause of the Second Amendment.


----------



## ding

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Only the Supreme Court can determine what the Constitution means, including the Second Amendment.


Do you mean the same Supreme Court that found that some human life is property to be disposed of at the will of its owner?  Twice?  That Supreme Court?


C_Clayton_Jones said:


> And there was nothing in the OP justifying that the will of the majority of the people could be ignored because a minority incorrectly and subjectively perceives the government to have become ‘tyrannical,’ authorizing ‘armed rebellion.’


That's right.  It hasn't happened yet.  We won't know until if we get there.  I'm curious, how many people got to make that call the last time it happened?


C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Indeed, there are rightwing idiots who currently propagate the ridiculous lie that the government has become ‘tyrannical.’’


Maybe so.  I don't know anything about that.  Have they risen up yet?


----------



## Boss

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Indeed, there are rightwing idiots who currently propagate the ridiculous lie that the government has become ‘tyrannical.’



Let's straighten you out, fucktard... IF the federal government had become tyrannical, we'd already have taken it back over. Your little pissant ass wouldn't deter us from that, should it ever happen. 



C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Only the Supreme Court can determine what the Constitution means, including the Second Amendment.



No, the Supreme Court does not get to determine what the Constitution means. Take a fucking civics class and educate yourself. The Constitution means what the Constitution means and the SCOTUS determines how it applies to certain cases it hears. If you want to change what the Constitution means, there is an Amendment process. It has been used 17 times since the Bill of Rights.


----------



## ding

Boss said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, there are rightwing idiots who currently propagate the ridiculous lie that the government has become ‘tyrannical.’
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's straighten you out, fucktard... IF the federal government had become tyrannical, we'd already have taken it back over. Your little pissant ass wouldn't deter us from that, should it ever happen.
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only the Supreme Court can determine what the Constitution means, including the Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the Supreme Court does not get to determine what the Constitution means. Take a fucking civics class and educate yourself. The Constitution means what the Constitution means and the SCOTUS determines how it applies to certain cases it hears. If you want to change what the Constitution means, there is an Amendment process. It has been used 17 times since the Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...

If I were gay I would marry you.

Supreme Court & Judicial Review

http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3977&context=californialawreview

Judicial review in the United States - Wikipedia

The Supreme Court and Unconstitutional Acts of Congress on JSTOR


----------



## CrusaderFrank

ding excellent OP! welcome


----------



## frigidweirdo

Tennyson said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.
> 
> "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> "_f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
> 
> - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.
> 
> "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"
> 
> Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"
> 
> The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.
> 
> "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
> 
> "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
> 
> "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly the right to bear arms doesn't give you an armed populace. That's the right to keep arms. The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia.
> 
> i.e., the militia with citizen soldiers, that means you need people with the guns for the militia, and you need people to use the guns in the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are overlooking that the militia clause is the prefatory clause and the right to bear arms is the operative clause. The use of the indefinite articles "a" and "an" in Article I, Section 8 and the Second Amendment are precise and intentional. The collective right to arms is in Article I, § 8, Clause 15, which was supported in Presser v Illinois, and the individual right is in the operative clause of the Second Amendment.
Click to expand...


No, I'm not. 

You're just unable to comprehend what I'm saying. I've said it plenty of times and you keep acting like I said something else. It's getting a little tiring.


----------



## Tennyson

frigidweirdo said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.
> 
> "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> "_f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
> 
> - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.
> 
> "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"
> 
> Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"
> 
> The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.
> 
> "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
> 
> "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
> 
> "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly the right to bear arms doesn't give you an armed populace. That's the right to keep arms. The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia.
> 
> i.e., the militia with citizen soldiers, that means you need people with the guns for the militia, and you need people to use the guns in the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are overlooking that the militia clause is the prefatory clause and the right to bear arms is the operative clause. The use of the indefinite articles "a" and "an" in Article I, Section 8 and the Second Amendment are precise and intentional. The collective right to arms is in Article I, § 8, Clause 15, which was supported in Presser v Illinois, and the individual right is in the operative clause of the Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm not.
> 
> You're just unable to comprehend what I'm saying. I've said it plenty of times and you keep acting like I said something else. It's getting a little tiring.
Click to expand...


I understand that you are equating the right to bear arms with the militia. I understand you are making a collective statement. I understand you addressed nothing in my post.


----------



## ding

frigidweirdo said:


> Do you understand the concept? Then we can be done when you've got it.



Clearly, there is confusion as to what you are saying.  As near as I can tell, the 2nd Amendment has no teeth if the populace can't own guns AND belong to the militia.  It seems to me that was what the founders intended.  This would be especially true if said militia were under the auspices of the federal government.  So maybe you could expound on your statements a little more and explain what you are trying to convey to me.  Better yet, do you believe the 2nd Amendment gives peaceable law abiding citizens the right to own and possess firearms that a light infantry of the day ought to possess?


----------



## ding

frigidweirdo said:


> Do you understand the concept? Then we can be done when you've got it.



Here is my proof that the Framers intended the militia to be the people themselves and keep and possess their arms.

_*A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms*… "To preserve liberty, *it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."*  - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience;* or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"  *Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

"I ask who are the militia? *They consist now of the whole people*, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword;* because the whole body of the people are armed,* and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

*"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.* A well regulated militia, *composed of the body of the people*, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

_


----------



## ding

frigidweirdo said:


> Do you understand the concept? Then we can be done when you've got it.



What did they mean when they refered to a well regulated militia?

_Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it._


----------



## frigidweirdo

ding said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand the concept? Then we can be done when you've got it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly, there is confusion as to what you are saying.  As near as I can tell, the 2nd Amendment has no teeth if the populace can't own guns AND belong to the militia.  It seems to me that was what the founders intended.  This would be especially true if said militia were under the auspices of the federal government.  So maybe you could expound on your statements a little more and explain what you are trying to convey to me.  Better yet, do you believe the 2nd Amendment gives peaceable law abiding citizens the right to own and possess firearms that a light infantry of the day ought to possess?
Click to expand...


Clearly there is. 

Somehow when I said "the right to keep arms is the right to own weapons" and "the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia" you suddenly think I'm saying that the militia has the right, or that you can only have the right if you're in the militia. Personally I can't find anywhere where I said that. 

So, I've said like 5 times already that the people can own guns and they can be in the militia, and you're now telling me the founders said this. Yeah, they said this, and I said this. 

What an individual may own is actually quite difficult. The line between what they have a right to own, and what can be banned isn't always so clear. In the past it was arms, as in, weapons you can carry in your arms, ie, not a cannon. In the modern era people would say it's what is common for people to have as an individual, like handguns.

What you have to remember is that the 2A doesn't grant a right, it merely tells the US federal govt (and now state govts) what they can't do. What they can't do is prevent individuals from having arms. So, if they allow individuals to have only one weapon, then people can clearly have arms. (the issue of whether the feds have the power to limit isn't necessary to bring up here). The feds have to allow for there to be a market in arms, but they don't have to allow fully automatic weapons, for example, because people can still be armed with modern weaponry without having those. 

So, the line is flexible as to what individuals can and cannot own.


----------



## frigidweirdo

ding said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand the concept? Then we can be done when you've got it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is my proof that the Framers intended the militia to be the people themselves and keep and possess their arms.
> 
> _*A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms*… "To preserve liberty, *it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."*  - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience;* or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"  *Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"
> 
> "I ask who are the militia? *They consist now of the whole people*, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
> 
> "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword;* because the whole body of the people are armed,* and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
> 
> *"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.* A well regulated militia, *composed of the body of the people*, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
> _
Click to expand...


Then again, I said right from the beginning that people could own weapons and be in the militia...


----------



## Boss

frigidweirdo said:


> In the past it was arms, as in, weapons you can carry in your arms, ie, not a cannon. In the modern era people would say it's what is common for people to have as an individual, like handguns.



"Arms" is short for "armaments" not a description of where you can carry a weapon. And FYI, the US Government, up until about 1890, paid privateers to patrol the waters of the Eastern seaboard with ships equipped with many cannons. There is no restriction of cannons in the 2nd Amendment and if you can find a cannon today, you can still own one. 



frigidweirdo said:


> What you have to remember is that the 2A doesn't grant a right, it merely tells the US federal govt (and now state govts) what they can't do. What they can't do is prevent individuals from having arms. So, if they allow individuals to have only one weapon, then people can clearly have arms.



You are right, our rights are endowed by our Creator... that's where they come from and they cannot be alienated. That means, man cannot remove them. People can own as many arms as they want, it's their inalienable right and 2A doesn't limit the number or allow the government to restrict the number. 



frigidweirdo said:


> The feds have to allow for there to be a market in arms, but *they don't have to allow fully automatic weapons*, for example, because people can still be armed with modern weaponry without having those.



Where does the 2nd Amendment give them this authority? The answer is, nowhere. Again, it is an inalienable right. What states can do is regulate what types of arms can be bought and sold by the general public. There has been a nationwide ban on fully-automatic weapons since the 1920s but individuals can still obtain special permits to own them if they so desire.


----------



## ding

frigidweirdo said:


> So, if they allow individuals to have only one weapon, then people can clearly have arms. (the issue of whether the feds have the power to limit isn't necessary to bring up here). The feds have to allow for there to be a market in arms, but they don't have to allow fully automatic weapons, for example, because people can still be armed with modern weaponry without having those.
> 
> So, the line is flexible as to what individuals can and cannot own.



I disagree.  I read the intent to be to own the technology of the day that a light infantry would and should own and use.  I don't see how a reasonable person would read a number of arms limitation into it.


----------



## ding

frigidweirdo said:


> Then again, I said right from the beginning that people could own weapons and be in the militia...



I have no doubt it was clear in your mind what you meant.  I'm no mind reader.  You seem a bit put off.


----------



## Vandalshandle

...and yet, one of President Washington's first duties was to ride at the head of a military force to put down the Whiskey Rebellion in Pennsylvania, who were, in fact, trying to exercise their right to bear arms against an oppressive government. 

I suspect that Washington was not in favor of a "well regulated militia", especially since he avoided relying on state militias as much as possible, all the way through the revolution, having repeatedly found them unreliable, and poor soldiers, in general.

Whiskey Rebellion - Wikipedia


----------



## Tennyson

The simplest way to look at the Second Amendment and avoid semantics is the Bill of Rights did not grant rights. The only purpose was to absolutely prohibit the federal government from infringing on those rights. There is no historical evidence, nor would there be any evidence, of a condition on an unalienable right. The only concept of this is in the Fifth Amendment's due process clause regarding life, liberty, and property. The Second Amendment is absolute. It was not novel as it mirrored the state's constitutions.


----------



## frigidweirdo

ding said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, if they allow individuals to have only one weapon, then people can clearly have arms. (the issue of whether the feds have the power to limit isn't necessary to bring up here). The feds have to allow for there to be a market in arms, but they don't have to allow fully automatic weapons, for example, because people can still be armed with modern weaponry without having those.
> 
> So, the line is flexible as to what individuals can and cannot own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree.  I read the intent to be to own the technology of the day that a light infantry would and should own and use.  I don't see how a reasonable person would read a number of arms limitation into it.
Click to expand...


Well it's not what light infantry would have. It was always the weapons that citizens carried around in their normal daily life. 

I didn't say there was a limitation on the number of arms. I said what the Amendment means, which is that the feds can't prevent individuals from having arms. If you have a handgun, have I prevented you from having arms? No, I have not. If I prevent you having two guns, am I preventing you from having arms? No, I'm not.


----------



## frigidweirdo

ding said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then again, I said right from the beginning that people could own weapons and be in the militia...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no doubt it was clear in your mind what you meant.  I'm no mind reader.  You seem a bit put off.
Click to expand...


No mind reader, and you clearly didn't read what I had actually written either. You decided what I had written meant something that it didn't say. It happens too much for me not to get annoyed at it.


----------



## Dr Grump

[QUOTE="ding, post: 15669164, member: 59921"
I disagree.  _To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

No where here does it say have access or have a ready supply.  It literally says possess.

possess: have as belonging to one; own.

Furthermore, at the time of ratification, how did they have a ready supply if it were not for each citizen owning his own weapon?_[/QUOTE]

In order to belong to a militia. If that isn't the case why mention militia at all?


----------



## Tennyson

frigidweirdo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, if they allow individuals to have only one weapon, then people can clearly have arms. (the issue of whether the feds have the power to limit isn't necessary to bring up here). The feds have to allow for there to be a market in arms, but they don't have to allow fully automatic weapons, for example, because people can still be armed with modern weaponry without having those.
> 
> So, the line is flexible as to what individuals can and cannot own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree.  I read the intent to be to own the technology of the day that a light infantry would and should own and use.  I don't see how a reasonable person would read a number of arms limitation into it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well it's not what light infantry would have. It was always the weapons that citizens carried around in their normal daily life.
> 
> I didn't say there was a limitation on the number of arms. I said what the Amendment means, which is that the feds can't prevent individuals from having arms. If you have a handgun, have I prevented you from having arms? No, I have not. If I prevent you having two guns, am I preventing you from having arms? No, I'm not.
Click to expand...


There was no wiggle room for the federal govenment to set any limit. The word "infringe" had a different meaning in the 18th century. One thing to note is the Bill of Rights were not viewed as actual amendments. Madison's first submission was to have the Bill of Rights inserted directly into the body of the articles. This was rejected. That would have subjected the Bill of Rights to the Article V amendment process. That is why the Bill of Rights are in the order they are and why they are not under the purview of any of the three branches of the federal government.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Tennyson said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, if they allow individuals to have only one weapon, then people can clearly have arms. (the issue of whether the feds have the power to limit isn't necessary to bring up here). The feds have to allow for there to be a market in arms, but they don't have to allow fully automatic weapons, for example, because people can still be armed with modern weaponry without having those.
> 
> So, the line is flexible as to what individuals can and cannot own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree.  I read the intent to be to own the technology of the day that a light infantry would and should own and use.  I don't see how a reasonable person would read a number of arms limitation into it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well it's not what light infantry would have. It was always the weapons that citizens carried around in their normal daily life.
> 
> I didn't say there was a limitation on the number of arms. I said what the Amendment means, which is that the feds can't prevent individuals from having arms. If you have a handgun, have I prevented you from having arms? No, I have not. If I prevent you having two guns, am I preventing you from having arms? No, I'm not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was no wiggle room for the federal govenment to set any limit. The word "infringe" had a different meaning in the 18th century. One thing to note is the Bill of Rights were not viewed as actual amendments. Madison's first submission was to have the Bill of Rights inserted directly into the body of the articles. This was rejected. That would have subjected the Bill of Rights to the Article V amendment process. That is why the Bill of Rights are in the order they are and why they are not under the purview of any of the three branches of the federal government.
Click to expand...


Infringe meant something different in the 18th Century? Really? Like what? Like eat potatoes? 

A Table Alphabeticall of Hard Usual English Words (R. Cawdrey, 1604)

I have this from the 1604. 

"_infringe, _ to breake, to make weake, or feeble. "

I doubt that's it. 

A dictionary of the English language. Abstracted from the folio ed., by the author. To which is prefixed, an English grammar. To this ed. are added, a history of the English language [&c.].

I have this from Johnson's Dictionary

"To INFRINGE. v. a. [infringo, Lat] 1. To violate ; to break laws or contracts. Waller. 2. To destroy : to hinder. Waller."

I mean, this was from 1768, only 20 years before they'd be debating this amendment that was put forward, and it doesn't seem to mean that either. And it didn't change in the next dictionary A Dictionary of the English Language

That's from 1828.

The order of the Amendments is neither here nor there.


----------



## Tennyson

frigidweirdo said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, if they allow individuals to have only one weapon, then people can clearly have arms. (the issue of whether the feds have the power to limit isn't necessary to bring up here). The feds have to allow for there to be a market in arms, but they don't have to allow fully automatic weapons, for example, because people can still be armed with modern weaponry without having those.
> 
> So, the line is flexible as to what individuals can and cannot own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree.  I read the intent to be to own the technology of the day that a light infantry would and should own and use.  I don't see how a reasonable person would read a number of arms limitation into it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well it's not what light infantry would have. It was always the weapons that citizens carried around in their normal daily life.
> 
> I didn't say there was a limitation on the number of arms. I said what the Amendment means, which is that the feds can't prevent individuals from having arms. If you have a handgun, have I prevented you from having arms? No, I have not. If I prevent you having two guns, am I preventing you from having arms? No, I'm not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was no wiggle room for the federal govenment to set any limit. The word "infringe" had a different meaning in the 18th century. One thing to note is the Bill of Rights were not viewed as actual amendments. Madison's first submission was to have the Bill of Rights inserted directly into the body of the articles. This was rejected. That would have subjected the Bill of Rights to the Article V amendment process. That is why the Bill of Rights are in the order they are and why they are not under the purview of any of the three branches of the federal government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Infringe meant something different in the 18th Century? Really? Like what? Like eat potatoes?
> 
> A Table Alphabeticall of Hard Usual English Words (R. Cawdrey, 1604)
> 
> I have this from the 1604.
> 
> "_infringe, _ to breake, to make weake, or feeble. "
> 
> I doubt that's it.
> 
> A dictionary of the English language. Abstracted from the folio ed., by the author. To which is prefixed, an English grammar. To this ed. are added, a history of the English language [&c.].
> 
> I have this from Johnson's Dictionary
> 
> "To INFRINGE. v. a. [infringo, Lat] 1. To violate ; to break laws or contracts. Waller. 2. To destroy : to hinder. Waller."
> 
> I mean, this was from 1768, only 20 years before they'd be debating this amendment that was put forward, and it doesn't seem to mean that either. And it didn't change in the next dictionary A Dictionary of the English Language
> 
> That's from 1828.
> 
> The order of the Amendments is neither here nor there.
Click to expand...


The word "infringed" is derived from the Latin word _infrango._ The meaning according to Webster’s dictionary of the era was "meant to break, abolish, or cancel." It is absolute. Today's meaning "to wrongly limit or restrict (something, such as another person's rights." Two completely different meanings. Moreover, that only scratches the surface:  The meaning of infringed in the lexicon of the times, the context of infringed in other sections of the Constitution, the meaning how the debates within the Constitutional convention used the word, the historical context and contemporaneous social, economic, and political events in 1787. 

Madison's wanting the Bill of Rights inserted into the body of the constitution is very relevant. The rejection precludes any branch of the federal government from interfering in state laws. 



> Fourthly
> 
> That in article 2st, section 9, between clauses 3 and 4, be inserted these clauses, to wit, The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience by in any manner, or on any pretext infringed.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Tennyson said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, if they allow individuals to have only one weapon, then people can clearly have arms. (the issue of whether the feds have the power to limit isn't necessary to bring up here). The feds have to allow for there to be a market in arms, but they don't have to allow fully automatic weapons, for example, because people can still be armed with modern weaponry without having those.
> 
> So, the line is flexible as to what individuals can and cannot own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree.  I read the intent to be to own the technology of the day that a light infantry would and should own and use.  I don't see how a reasonable person would read a number of arms limitation into it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well it's not what light infantry would have. It was always the weapons that citizens carried around in their normal daily life.
> 
> I didn't say there was a limitation on the number of arms. I said what the Amendment means, which is that the feds can't prevent individuals from having arms. If you have a handgun, have I prevented you from having arms? No, I have not. If I prevent you having two guns, am I preventing you from having arms? No, I'm not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was no wiggle room for the federal govenment to set any limit. The word "infringe" had a different meaning in the 18th century. One thing to note is the Bill of Rights were not viewed as actual amendments. Madison's first submission was to have the Bill of Rights inserted directly into the body of the articles. This was rejected. That would have subjected the Bill of Rights to the Article V amendment process. That is why the Bill of Rights are in the order they are and why they are not under the purview of any of the three branches of the federal government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Infringe meant something different in the 18th Century? Really? Like what? Like eat potatoes?
> 
> A Table Alphabeticall of Hard Usual English Words (R. Cawdrey, 1604)
> 
> I have this from the 1604.
> 
> "_infringe, _ to breake, to make weake, or feeble. "
> 
> I doubt that's it.
> 
> A dictionary of the English language. Abstracted from the folio ed., by the author. To which is prefixed, an English grammar. To this ed. are added, a history of the English language [&c.].
> 
> I have this from Johnson's Dictionary
> 
> "To INFRINGE. v. a. [infringo, Lat] 1. To violate ; to break laws or contracts. Waller. 2. To destroy : to hinder. Waller."
> 
> I mean, this was from 1768, only 20 years before they'd be debating this amendment that was put forward, and it doesn't seem to mean that either. And it didn't change in the next dictionary A Dictionary of the English Language
> 
> That's from 1828.
> 
> The order of the Amendments is neither here nor there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The word "infringed" is derived from the Latin word _infrango._ The meaning according to Webster’s dictionary of the era was "meant to break, abolish, or cancel." It is absolute. Today's meaning "to wrongly limit or restrict (something, such as another person's rights." Two completely different meanings. Moreover, that only scratches the surface:  The meaning of infringed in the lexicon of the times, the context of infringed in other sections of the Constitution, the meaning how the debates within the Constitutional convention used the word, the historical context and contemporaneous social, economic, and political events in 1787.
> 
> Madison's wanting the Bill of Rights inserted into the body of the constitution is very relevant. The rejection precludes any branch of the federal government from interfering in state laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fourthly
> 
> That in article 2st, section 9, between clauses 3 and 4, be inserted these clauses, to wit, The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience by in any manner, or on any pretext infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


I don't think there is anywhere where "infringe" means to wrongly limit or restrict.


----------



## Tennyson

frigidweirdo said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree.  I read the intent to be to own the technology of the day that a light infantry would and should own and use.  I don't see how a reasonable person would read a number of arms limitation into it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well it's not what light infantry would have. It was always the weapons that citizens carried around in their normal daily life.
> 
> I didn't say there was a limitation on the number of arms. I said what the Amendment means, which is that the feds can't prevent individuals from having arms. If you have a handgun, have I prevented you from having arms? No, I have not. If I prevent you having two guns, am I preventing you from having arms? No, I'm not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was no wiggle room for the federal govenment to set any limit. The word "infringe" had a different meaning in the 18th century. One thing to note is the Bill of Rights were not viewed as actual amendments. Madison's first submission was to have the Bill of Rights inserted directly into the body of the articles. This was rejected. That would have subjected the Bill of Rights to the Article V amendment process. That is why the Bill of Rights are in the order they are and why they are not under the purview of any of the three branches of the federal government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Infringe meant something different in the 18th Century? Really? Like what? Like eat potatoes?
> 
> A Table Alphabeticall of Hard Usual English Words (R. Cawdrey, 1604)
> 
> I have this from the 1604.
> 
> "_infringe, _ to breake, to make weake, or feeble. "
> 
> I doubt that's it.
> 
> A dictionary of the English language. Abstracted from the folio ed., by the author. To which is prefixed, an English grammar. To this ed. are added, a history of the English language [&c.].
> 
> I have this from Johnson's Dictionary
> 
> "To INFRINGE. v. a. [infringo, Lat] 1. To violate ; to break laws or contracts. Waller. 2. To destroy : to hinder. Waller."
> 
> I mean, this was from 1768, only 20 years before they'd be debating this amendment that was put forward, and it doesn't seem to mean that either. And it didn't change in the next dictionary A Dictionary of the English Language
> 
> That's from 1828.
> 
> The order of the Amendments is neither here nor there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The word "infringed" is derived from the Latin word _infrango._ The meaning according to Webster’s dictionary of the era was "meant to break, abolish, or cancel." It is absolute. Today's meaning "to wrongly limit or restrict (something, such as another person's rights." Two completely different meanings. Moreover, that only scratches the surface:  The meaning of infringed in the lexicon of the times, the context of infringed in other sections of the Constitution, the meaning how the debates within the Constitutional convention used the word, the historical context and contemporaneous social, economic, and political events in 1787.
> 
> Madison's wanting the Bill of Rights inserted into the body of the constitution is very relevant. The rejection precludes any branch of the federal government from interfering in state laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fourthly
> 
> That in article 2st, section 9, between clauses 3 and 4, be inserted these clauses, to wit, The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience by in any manner, or on any pretext infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think there is anywhere where "infringe" means to wrongly limit or restrict.
Click to expand...


The dictionary and all federal gun laws and Supreme Court rulings.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Tennyson said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well it's not what light infantry would have. It was always the weapons that citizens carried around in their normal daily life.
> 
> I didn't say there was a limitation on the number of arms. I said what the Amendment means, which is that the feds can't prevent individuals from having arms. If you have a handgun, have I prevented you from having arms? No, I have not. If I prevent you having two guns, am I preventing you from having arms? No, I'm not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was no wiggle room for the federal govenment to set any limit. The word "infringe" had a different meaning in the 18th century. One thing to note is the Bill of Rights were not viewed as actual amendments. Madison's first submission was to have the Bill of Rights inserted directly into the body of the articles. This was rejected. That would have subjected the Bill of Rights to the Article V amendment process. That is why the Bill of Rights are in the order they are and why they are not under the purview of any of the three branches of the federal government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Infringe meant something different in the 18th Century? Really? Like what? Like eat potatoes?
> 
> A Table Alphabeticall of Hard Usual English Words (R. Cawdrey, 1604)
> 
> I have this from the 1604.
> 
> "_infringe, _ to breake, to make weake, or feeble. "
> 
> I doubt that's it.
> 
> A dictionary of the English language. Abstracted from the folio ed., by the author. To which is prefixed, an English grammar. To this ed. are added, a history of the English language [&c.].
> 
> I have this from Johnson's Dictionary
> 
> "To INFRINGE. v. a. [infringo, Lat] 1. To violate ; to break laws or contracts. Waller. 2. To destroy : to hinder. Waller."
> 
> I mean, this was from 1768, only 20 years before they'd be debating this amendment that was put forward, and it doesn't seem to mean that either. And it didn't change in the next dictionary A Dictionary of the English Language
> 
> That's from 1828.
> 
> The order of the Amendments is neither here nor there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The word "infringed" is derived from the Latin word _infrango._ The meaning according to Webster’s dictionary of the era was "meant to break, abolish, or cancel." It is absolute. Today's meaning "to wrongly limit or restrict (something, such as another person's rights." Two completely different meanings. Moreover, that only scratches the surface:  The meaning of infringed in the lexicon of the times, the context of infringed in other sections of the Constitution, the meaning how the debates within the Constitutional convention used the word, the historical context and contemporaneous social, economic, and political events in 1787.
> 
> Madison's wanting the Bill of Rights inserted into the body of the constitution is very relevant. The rejection precludes any branch of the federal government from interfering in state laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fourthly
> 
> That in article 2st, section 9, between clauses 3 and 4, be inserted these clauses, to wit, The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience by in any manner, or on any pretext infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think there is anywhere where "infringe" means to wrongly limit or restrict.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The dictionary and all federal gun laws and Supreme Court rulings.
Click to expand...


Which dictionary?

Oxford?

infringe - definition of infringe in English | Oxford Dictionaries

"
Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.
_‘his legal rights were being infringed’_"

There's no "wrongly" there, nor anything which suggests so.

The American Heritage Dictionary entry: infringe

"To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: _infringe a contract; infringe a patent._"

infringe | Definition, meaning & more | Collins Dictionary

"
1. (transitive) to violate or break (a law, an agreement, etc)
2. (intr; foll by on or upon) to encroach or trespass"

I don't find it in these dictionaries, but found it in Merriam Webster

Definition of INFRINGE

"to wrongly limit or restrict (something, such as another person's rights)"

So, I'd say one dictionary has found this.

As for the Supreme Court, you're going to have to show me that one.


----------



## Boss

frigidweirdo said:


> If you have a handgun, have I prevented you from having arms? No, I have not. If I prevent you having two guns, am I preventing you from having arms? No, I'm not.



Well yes, you are! I have one and you are prohibiting me from having another. The 2A doesn't say you have the inalienable right to bear ONE weapon but no more. So where are you getting this authority?


----------



## ding

frigidweirdo said:


> No mind reader, and you clearly didn't read what I had actually written either. You decided what I had written meant something that it didn't say. It happens too much for me not to get annoyed at it.



I am absolutely 100% positive that I read every single word.



frigidweirdo said:


> Well it's not what light infantry would have. It was always the weapons that citizens carried around in their normal daily life.



I read militia as light infantry because that's what a militia is. 



frigidweirdo said:


> I didn't say there was a limitation on the number of arms. I said what the Amendment means, which is that the feds can't prevent individuals from having arms. If you have a handgun, have I prevented you from having arms? No, I have not. If I prevent you having two guns, am I preventing you from having arms? No, I'm not.



Actually, yes.  Yes to are preventing me from having arms.  Allowing one and preventing another still is preventing arms.  The dead give way is the word preventing.


----------



## ding

From Webster 1829, as in Noah Webster, Founding Father and Framer of the Constitution

*INFRINGE*, _verb transitive_ infrinj'. [Latin infringo; in and frango, to break. *See Break.*]

*1.* To break, as contracts; to violate, either positively by contravention, or negatively by non-fulfillment or neglect of performance. A prince or a private person infringes an agreement or covenant by neglecting to perform its conditions, as well as by doing what is stipulated not to be done.

*2.* To break; to violate; to transgress; to neglect to fulfill or obey; as, to _infringe_ a law.

*3.* To destroy or hinder; as, to _infringe_ efficacy. [Little used.]


*Break*
*BREAK*, _verb transitive_ _preterit tense_ broke, [brake.obs.] _participle passive_broke or broken.

[Latin frango, fregi, n casual; Heb.to _break_ to free or deliver, to separate.]

*1.* To part or divide by force and violence, as a solid substance; to rend apart; as, to _break_ a band; to _break_ a thread or a cable.

*2.* To burst or open by force.

The fountains of the earth were broke open.

*3.* To divide by piercing or penetrating; to burst forth; as, the light breaks through the clouds.

*4.* To make breaches or gaps by battering, as in a wall.

*5.* To destroy, crush, weaken, or impair, as the human body or constitution.

*6.* To sink; to appall or subdue; as, to _break_ the spirits, or the passions.

*7.* To crush; to shatter; to dissipate the strength of, as of an army.

*8.* To weaken, or impair, as the faculties.

*9.* To tame; to train to obedience; to make tractable; as, to _break_ a horse.

*10.* To make bankrupt.

*11.* To discard, dismiss or cashier; as, to _break_ an officer.

*12.* To crack, to part or divide, as the skin; to open, as an aposteme.

*13.* To violate, as a contract or promise, either by a positive act contrary to the promise, or by neglect or non-fulfillment.

*14.* To infringe or violate, as a law, or any moral obligation, either by a positive act or by an omission of what is required.

*15.* To stop; to interrupt; to cause to cease; as, to _break_ conversation; to _break_sleep.

*16.* To intercept; to check; to lessen the force of; as, to _break_ a fall, or a blow.

*17.* To separate; to part; as, to _break_ company of friendship.

*18.* To dissolve any union; sometimes with off; as, to _break_ off a connection.

*19.* To cause to abandon; to reform or cause to reform; as, to _break_ one of ill habits or practices.

*20.* To open as a purpose; to propound something new; to make a first disclosure of opinions; as, to _break_ one's mind.

*21.* To frustrate; to prevent.

If plagues or earthquakes _break_ not heaven's design.

*22.* To take away; as, to _break_ the whole staff of bread. Psalms 105:1.

*23.* To stretch; to strain; to rack; as, to _break_ one on the wheel.

To _break_ the back, to strain or dislocate the vertebers with too heavy a burden; also, to disable one's fortune.

To _break_ bulk, to begin to unload.

To _break_ a deer, to cut it up at table.

To breakfast, to eat the first meal in the day, but used as a compound word.

To _break_ ground, to plow.

To _break_ ground, to dig; to open trenches.

To _break_ the heart, to afflict grievously; to cause great sorrow or grief; to depress with sorrow or despair.

To _break_ a jest, to utter a jest unexpected.

To _break_ the neck, to dislocate the joints of the neck.

To _break_ off, to put a sudden stop to; to interrupt; to discontinue.

*BREAK* off thy sins by righteousness. Daniel 4:27.

*1.* To sever; to divide; as, to _break_ off a twig.

To _break_ sheer, in marine language. When a ship at anchor is in a position to keep clear of the anchor, but is forced by wind or current out of that position, she breaks her sheer.

To _break_ up, to dissolve or put an end to; as, to _break_ up house-keeping.

*1.* To open or lay open; as, to _break_ up a bed of earth.

*2.* To plow ground the first time, or after lying long unplowed; a common use in the U. States.

*3.* To separate; as, to _break_ up a company.

*4.* To disband; as, to _break_ up an army.

To _break_ upon the wheel, to stretch and _break_ the bones by torture upon the wheel.

To _break_ wind, to give vent to wind from the body backward.

*BREAK*, _verb intransitive_ To part; to separate; to divide in two; as, the ice breaks; a band breaks.

*1.* To burst; as, a storm or deluge breaks.

*2.* To burst, by dashing against something; as, a wave breaks upon a rock.

*3.* To open, as a tumor or aposteme.

*4.* To open, as the morning; to show the first light; to dawn.

*5.* To burst forth; to utter or exclaim.

*6.* To fail in trade or other occupation; to become bankrupt.

*7.* To decline in health and strength; to begin to lose the natural vigor.

*8.* To issue out with vehemence.

*9.* To make way with violence or suddenness; to rush; often with a particle; as, to _break_ in; to _break_ in upon, as calamities; to _break_ over, as a flood; to _break_out, as a fire; to _break_ forth, as light or a sound.

*10.* To come to an explanation.

I am to _break_ with thee upon some affairs. [I believe, antiquated.]

*11.* To suffer an interruption of friendship; to fall out.

Be not afraid to _break_ with traitors.

*12.* To faint, flag or pant.

My soul breaketh for longing to thy judgments. Psalms 119:20.

To _break_ away, to disengage itself from; to rush from; also, to dissolve itself or dissipate, as fog or clouds.

To _break_ forth, to issue out.

To _break_ from, to disengage from; to depart abruptly, or with vehemence.

To _break_ in, to enter by force; to enter unexpectedly; to intrude.

To _break_ loose, to get free by force; to escape from confinement by violence; to shake off restraint.

To _break_ off, to part; to divide; also, to desist suddenly.

To _break_ off from, to part from with violence.

To _break_ out, to issue forth; to discover itself by its effects, to arise or spring up; as, a fire breaks out; a sedition breaks out; a fever breaks out.

*1.* To appear in eruptions, as pustules; to have pustules, or an efflorescence on the skin, as a child breaks out. Hence we have freckle from the root of _break_

*2.* To throw off restraint, and become dissolute.

To _break_ up, to dissolve itself and separate; as a company breaks up; a meeting breaks up; a fog breaks up; but more generally we say, fog, mist or clouds _break_ away.

To _break_ with, to part in enmity; to cease to be friends; as, to _break_ with a friend or companion.

This verb carries with it its primitive sense of straining, parting, severing, bursting, often with violence, with the consequential senses of injury, defect and infirmity.

*BREAK*, _noun_ A state of being open, or the act of separating; an opening made by force; an open place. It is the same word as brack, differently written and pronounced.

*1.* A pause; an interruption.

*2.* A line in writing or printing, noting a suspension of the sense, or a stop in the sentence.

*3.* In a ship, the _break_ of the deck is the part where it terminates, and the descent on to the next deck below commences.

*4.* The first appearance of light in the morning; the dawn; as the _break_ of day.


----------



## rightwinger

ding said:


> The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.
> 
> "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> "_f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
> 
> - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.
> 
> "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"
> 
> Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"
> 
> The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.
> 
> "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
> 
> "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
> 
> "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it._


And the Government elected by We the People has an obligation to put down any insurrection


----------



## ding

Dr Grump said:


> [QUOTE="ding, post: 15669164, member: 59921"
> I disagree.  _To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788_


_

No where here does it say have access or have a ready supply.  It literally says possess.

possess: have as belonging to one; own.

Furthermore, at the time of ratification, how did they have a ready supply if it were not for each citizen owning his own weapon?_[/QUOTE]

In order to belong to a militia. If that isn't the case why mention militia at all?[/QUOTE]
Sure, but they viewed the whole body of the people as the militia and that it was to serve as a check against a standing army of the government which means the militia could not be under the control of the federal government.


----------



## ding

rightwinger said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.
> 
> "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> "_f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
> 
> - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.
> 
> "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"
> 
> Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"
> 
> The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.
> 
> "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
> 
> "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
> 
> "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it._
> 
> 
> 
> And the Government elected by We the People has an obligation to put down any insurrection
Click to expand...

The beauty of the 2nd Amendment is that as long as the people are armed there will never be a need to rebel because the mere act of an armed populace serves to check the behavior of the government.


----------



## Dr Grump

ding said:


> Sure, but they viewed the whole body of the people as the militia and that it was to serve as a check against a standing army of the government which means the militia could not be under the control of the federal government.



Doesn't negate my point. Take out the word militia and your point stands. keep it in there and it doesn't.


----------



## rightwinger

ding said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.
> 
> "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> "_f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
> 
> - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.
> 
> "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"
> 
> Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"
> 
> The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.
> 
> "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
> 
> "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
> 
> "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it._
> 
> 
> 
> And the Government elected by We the People has an obligation to put down any insurrection
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The beauty of the 2nd Amendment is that as long as the people are armed there will never be a need to rebel because the mere act of an armed populace serves to check the behavior of the government.
Click to expand...


History has shown that because we have such a powerful 1st amendment, we have never needed a 2nd

While the people had a small chance to overthrow the Government using muskets in1776, they have no chance against a modern army

Citizens militia did not win the RevolutionaryWar


----------



## Boss

rightwinger said:


> While the people had a small chance to overthrow the Government using muskets in1776, they have no chance against a modern army



This is just foolish and short-sighted. Even if the US military were motivated to do so, they couldn't defeat 200 million people armed with 350 million guns. We have trouble securing a small town in Iraq against radical Islamic rebels with homemade IEDs and pickup trucks. In any such imaginable scenario, you're going to have about half or more of the military deserting their posts to join their fellow Americans in revolution. Much of the heavy arsenal of US military weapons would be seized in a matter of hours. All National Guard Armories would be controlled by the people in revolution, not the US military. Short of launching some sort of nuclear attack, the coup would stand no change of success... and what are they going to do, rule over a desolate nuclear wasteland? What would be the point? 

You've got some little fucked up notion in your head that the scenario would be the liberals control the army and all the army are committed to the liberals against the redneck right-wingers and their guns. You figure your weapons would be bigger and badder, therefore, you'd win the confrontation. But that's not how any scenario would play out... except inside your fucked up little liberal head.


----------



## Vandalshandle

The keyboard commandos are getting restless....


----------



## rightwinger

Boss said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> While the people had a small chance to overthrow the Government using muskets in1776, they have no chance against a modern army
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is just foolish and short-sighted. Even if the US military were motivated to do so, they couldn't defeat 200 million people armed with 350 million guns. We have trouble securing a small town in Iraq against radical Islamic rebels with homemade IEDs and pickup trucks. In any such imaginable scenario, you're going to have about half or more of the military deserting their posts to join their fellow Americans in revolution. Much of the heavy arsenal of US military weapons would be seized in a matter of hours. All National Guard Armories would be controlled by the people in revolution, not the US military. Short of launching some sort of nuclear attack, the coup would stand no change of success... and what are they going to do, rule over a desolate nuclear wasteland? What would be the point?
> 
> You've got some little fucked up notion in your head that the scenario would be the liberals control the army and all the army are committed to the liberals against the redneck right-wingers and their guns. You figure your weapons would be bigger and badder, therefore, you'd win the confrontation. But that's not how any scenario would play out... except inside your fucked up little liberal head.
Click to expand...


You overstate the number of Americans who have guns and their willingness to take up arms against our country

You treat those who would take up arms against their country as heroes when in effect they would be bands of poorly trained, poorly led thugs against the strongest Army in the history of mankind


----------



## miketx

frigidweirdo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.
> 
> "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> "_f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
> 
> - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.
> 
> "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"
> 
> Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"
> 
> The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.
> 
> "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
> 
> "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
> 
> "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly the right to bear arms doesn't give you an armed populace. That's the right to keep arms. The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia.
> 
> i.e., the militia with citizen soldiers, that means you need people with the guns for the militia, and you need people to use the guns in the militia.
Click to expand...


And who is the militia, tard?


----------



## ding

miketx said:


> And who is the militia, tard?



I doubt you would be one.  I'll let Founding Fathers Richard Lee, James Madison, Noah Webster and George Mason respond to your insolent question. 

*A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves*_…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, *all men capable of bearing arms*… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788_

_"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. *A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people,* trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789_

_"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; *because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."* - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787_

_"I ask who are the militia? They *consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers*." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

Now do you understand?_


----------



## ding

Dr Grump said:


> Doesn't negate my point. Take out the word militia and your point stands. keep it in there and it doesn't.



It does negate your point if your point  is that citizens are not allowed to own guns unless they are in a militia.


----------



## miketx

ding said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> And who is the militia, tard?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt you would be one.  I'll let Founding Fathers Richard Lee, James Madison, Noah Webster and George Mason respond to your insolent question.
> 
> *A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves*_…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, *all men capable of bearing arms*… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788_
> 
> _"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. *A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people,* trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789_
> 
> _"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; *because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."* - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787_
> 
> _"I ask who are the militia? They *consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers*." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
> 
> Now do you understand?_
Click to expand...

I never did not understand.


----------



## ding

rightwinger said:


> History has shown that because we have such a powerful 1st amendment, we have never needed a 2nd.  While the people had a small chance to overthrow the Government using muskets in1776, they have no chance against a modern army Citizens militia did not win the RevolutionaryWar



Maybe not with muskets but with a superior number of citizens armed with modern day semi-automatic rifles, they do.  But as I have already written, we won't need to do that because we are armed and an armed populace in and of itself serves as a deterrent to prevent tyranny the same way that nuclear weapons serves as a deterrent to prevent nuclear war.  It seems that Founding Fathers, Noah Webster and Alexander Hamilton agree with me on both points too.  

*"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed*_, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; *because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."* - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787_

"I_f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude *that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens*, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist." - - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28_

Now do you understand.


----------



## miketx

ding said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> History has shown that because we have such a powerful 1st amendment, we have never needed a 2nd.  While the people had a small chance to overthrow the Government using muskets in1776, they have no chance against a modern army Citizens militia did not win the RevolutionaryWar
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe not with muskets but with a superior number of citizens armed with modern day semi-automatic rifles, they do.  But as I have already written, we won't need to because we are armed because an armed populace in and of itself will act as a deterrent the same way that nuclear weapons act as a deterrent to prevent nuclear war.  It seems that Founding Fathers, Noah Webster and Alexander Hamilton agree with me on both points too.
> 
> *"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed*_, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; *because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."* - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787_
> 
> "I_f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude *that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens*, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist." - - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28_
> 
> Now do you understand.
Click to expand...

It's not a matter of the turd eaters understanding, it's a matter of them refusing to do so.


----------



## Vandalshandle

miketx said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> And who is the militia, tard?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt you would be one.  I'll let Founding Fathers Richard Lee, James Madison, Noah Webster and George Mason respond to your insolent question.
> 
> *A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves*_…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, *all men capable of bearing arms*… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788_
> 
> _"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. *A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people,* trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789_
> 
> _"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; *because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."* - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787_
> 
> _"I ask who are the militia? They *consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers*." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
> 
> Now do you understand?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never did not understand.
Click to expand...


If they try to drive a Abrams tank up to my house, I'm going top shoot out their headlights with my .22!


----------



## ding

rightwinger said:


> You overstate the number of Americans who have guns and their willingness to take up arms against our country
> 
> You treat those who would take up arms against their country as heroes when in effect they would be bands of poorly trained, poorly led thugs against the strongest Army in the history of mankind



Maybe, maybe not.  Who said the army wouldn't be leading the charge?


----------



## ding

Vandalshandle said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> And who is the militia, tard?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt you would be one.  I'll let Founding Fathers Richard Lee, James Madison, Noah Webster and George Mason respond to your insolent question.
> 
> *A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves*_…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, *all men capable of bearing arms*… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788_
> 
> _"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. *A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people,* trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789_
> 
> _"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; *because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."* - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787_
> 
> _"I ask who are the militia? They *consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers*." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
> 
> Now do you understand?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never did not understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they try to drive a Abrams tank up to my house, I'm going top shoot out their headlights with my .22!
Click to expand...

Who are you trying to fool, you don't even own a peashooter let alone a rimfire.


----------



## miketx

ding said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> And who is the militia, tard?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt you would be one.  I'll let Founding Fathers Richard Lee, James Madison, Noah Webster and George Mason respond to your insolent question.
> 
> *A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves*_…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, *all men capable of bearing arms*… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788_
> 
> _"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. *A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people,* trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789_
> 
> _"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; *because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."* - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787_
> 
> _"I ask who are the militia? They *consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers*." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
> 
> Now do you understand?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never did not understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they try to drive a Abrams tank up to my house, I'm going top shoot out their headlights with my .22!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who are you trying to fool, you don't even own a peashooter let alone a rimfire.
Click to expand...

With all due respect, most liberals do have peashooters. They keep them in their pants.


----------



## Boss

rightwinger said:


> You overstate the number of Americans who have guns and their willingness to take up arms against our country
> 
> You treat those who would take up arms against their country as heroes when in effect they would be bands of poorly trained, poorly led thugs against the strongest Army in the history of mankind



No, you're trying to change the scenario around from a tyrannical coup to some rogue uprising among the populace. I'm not overstating anything.. there are currently over 350 million firearms and 200 million firearms owners. Should some tyrant entity take over our government, those people would rise up and there would be hell to pay. The "strongest army in the history of mankind" would quickly dissipate as most soldiers would not remain loyal to the tyrant.  

So, I don't know... unless you invented some kind of mind control drug where you could turn the military into a bunch of zombies who would turn on the population... I don't see any sort of a scenario where such a thing could happen. Even IF it did, there are 350 million guns among the population. That will overwhelm anything you could muster with military armament. Again... it took us months to secure Fallujah in Iraq and that was just a few thousand people with guns. 200 million is a LOT of people with guns.


----------



## Vandalshandle

ding said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> And who is the militia, tard?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt you would be one.  I'll let Founding Fathers Richard Lee, James Madison, Noah Webster and George Mason respond to your insolent question.
> 
> *A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves*_…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, *all men capable of bearing arms*… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788_
> 
> _"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. *A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people,* trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789_
> 
> _"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; *because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."* - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787_
> 
> _"I ask who are the militia? They *consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers*." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
> 
> Now do you understand?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never did not understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they try to drive a Abrams tank up to my house, I'm going top shoot out their headlights with my .22!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who are you trying to fool, you don't even own a peashooter let alone a rimfire.
Click to expand...


If I buy an imaginary AK-47, will I be allowed to join the Super Heros, and be allowed to learn the password to the secret treehouse?


----------



## ding

miketx said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> And who is the militia, tard?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt you would be one.  I'll let Founding Fathers Richard Lee, James Madison, Noah Webster and George Mason respond to your insolent question.
> 
> *A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves*_…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, *all men capable of bearing arms*… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788_
> 
> _"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. *A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people,* trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789_
> 
> _"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; *because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."* - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787_
> 
> _"I ask who are the militia? They *consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers*." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
> 
> Now do you understand?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never did not understand.
Click to expand...

You could have fooled me that you never did not understand.


----------



## ding

Vandalshandle said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> And who is the militia, tard?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt you would be one.  I'll let Founding Fathers Richard Lee, James Madison, Noah Webster and George Mason respond to your insolent question.
> 
> *A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves*_…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, *all men capable of bearing arms*… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788_
> 
> _"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. *A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people,* trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789_
> 
> _"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; *because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."* - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787_
> 
> _"I ask who are the militia? They *consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers*." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
> 
> Now do you understand?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never did not understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they try to drive a Abrams tank up to my house, I'm going top shoot out their headlights with my .22!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who are you trying to fool, you don't even own a peashooter let alone a rimfire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I buy an imaginary AK-47, will I be allowed to join the Super Heros, and be allowed to learn the password to the secret treehouse?
Click to expand...

No.  It's a mens only club.


----------



## ding

miketx said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> And who is the militia, tard?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt you would be one.  I'll let Founding Fathers Richard Lee, James Madison, Noah Webster and George Mason respond to your insolent question.
> 
> *A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves*_…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, *all men capable of bearing arms*… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788_
> 
> _"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. *A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people,* trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789_
> 
> _"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; *because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."* - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787_
> 
> _"I ask who are the militia? They *consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers*." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
> 
> Now do you understand?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never did not understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they try to drive a Abrams tank up to my house, I'm going top shoot out their headlights with my .22!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who are you trying to fool, you don't even own a peashooter let alone a rimfire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> With all due respect, most liberals do have peashooters. They keep them in their pants.
Click to expand...

That's probably true.  No wonder they don't want anyone to own a weapon.


----------



## miketx

ding said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> And who is the militia, tard?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt you would be one.  I'll let Founding Fathers Richard Lee, James Madison, Noah Webster and George Mason respond to your insolent question.
> 
> *A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves*_…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, *all men capable of bearing arms*… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788_
> 
> _"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. *A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people,* trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789_
> 
> _"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; *because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."* - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787_
> 
> _"I ask who are the militia? They *consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers*." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
> 
> Now do you understand?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never did not understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You could have fooled me that you never did not understand.
Click to expand...

Then you're fooling yourself. I'm as conservative as they come. When I asked you who were the militia I thought you were another libtard hammering against guns.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Drat! And I just invested $400 in new Camos to wear when I play in the woods....


----------



## Vandalshandle

If you let me in, I'll Bring my entire collection of Rambo movies!


----------



## frigidweirdo

ding said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No mind reader, and you clearly didn't read what I had actually written either. You decided what I had written meant something that it didn't say. It happens too much for me not to get annoyed at it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am absolutely 100% positive that I read every single word.
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well it's not what light infantry would have. It was always the weapons that citizens carried around in their normal daily life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read militia as light infantry because that's what a militia is.
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say there was a limitation on the number of arms. I said what the Amendment means, which is that the feds can't prevent individuals from having arms. If you have a handgun, have I prevented you from having arms? No, I have not. If I prevent you having two guns, am I preventing you from having arms? No, I'm not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, yes.  Yes to are preventing me from having arms.  Allowing one and preventing another still is preventing arms.  The dead give way is the word preventing.
Click to expand...


Maybe you read every word, however a lot of people end up thinking from their preconceived ideas on the subject, rather than trying to understand what is actually there. 

The militia isn't "light infantry" at all. The militia is a citizen army. You look at rebel groups, which is what the militia would become if it ever had to fight against the US armed forces, and you see that they use all sorts of weaponry. However in the modern era they'd need more than just guns. In the past it was merely the sort of guns that people had for normal use, and that would be handguns for the most part. 

No, allowing one and banning another is NOT preventing you from having arms. It is preventing you from having specific arms. However no one has ever argued that individuals be allowed to have nuclear weaponry, SAM missiles, or other such things. There are clearly limits to what arms can be had.


----------



## frigidweirdo

miketx said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.
> 
> "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> "_f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
> 
> - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.
> 
> "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"
> 
> Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"
> 
> The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.
> 
> "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
> 
> "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
> 
> "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly the right to bear arms doesn't give you an armed populace. That's the right to keep arms. The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia.
> 
> i.e., the militia with citizen soldiers, that means you need people with the guns for the militia, and you need people to use the guns in the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And who is the militia, tard?
Click to expand...


Wow, insults.


----------



## rightwinger

ding said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> History has shown that because we have such a powerful 1st amendment, we have never needed a 2nd.  While the people had a small chance to overthrow the Government using muskets in1776, they have no chance against a modern army Citizens militia did not win the RevolutionaryWar
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe not with muskets but with a superior number of citizens armed with modern day semi-automatic rifles, they do.  But as I have already written, we won't need to do that because we are armed and an armed populace in and of itself serves as a deterrent to prevent tyranny the same way that nuclear weapons serves as a deterrent to prevent nuclear war.  It seems that Founding Fathers, Noah Webster and Alexander Hamilton agree with me on both points too.
> 
> *"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed*_, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; *because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."* - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787_
> 
> "I_f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude *that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens*, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist." - - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28_
> 
> Now do you understand.
Click to expand...

More gun nut fantasies...

Gubmint fucks wit me, I'm gunna grab my shooting iron and me and the boys will put them in their fucking place

Modern Army with modern weapons and tactics will put you in your place


----------



## rightwinger

Vandalshandle said:


> If you let me in, I'll Bring my entire collection of Rambo movies!



Red Dawn......Wolverine!


----------



## ding

frigidweirdo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No mind reader, and you clearly didn't read what I had actually written either. You decided what I had written meant something that it didn't say. It happens too much for me not to get annoyed at it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am absolutely 100% positive that I read every single word.
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well it's not what light infantry would have. It was always the weapons that citizens carried around in their normal daily life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read militia as light infantry because that's what a militia is.
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say there was a limitation on the number of arms. I said what the Amendment means, which is that the feds can't prevent individuals from having arms. If you have a handgun, have I prevented you from having arms? No, I have not. If I prevent you having two guns, am I preventing you from having arms? No, I'm not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, yes.  Yes to are preventing me from having arms.  Allowing one and preventing another still is preventing arms.  The dead give way is the word preventing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe you read every word, however a lot of people end up thinking from their preconceived ideas on the subject, rather than trying to understand what is actually there.
> 
> The militia isn't "light infantry" at all. The militia is a citizen army. You look at rebel groups, which is what the militia would become if it ever had to fight against the US armed forces, and you see that they use all sorts of weaponry. However in the modern era they'd need more than just guns. In the past it was merely the sort of guns that people had for normal use, and that would be handguns for the most part.
> 
> No, allowing one and banning another is NOT preventing you from having arms. It is preventing you from having specific arms. However no one has ever argued that individuals be allowed to have nuclear weaponry, SAM missiles, or other such things. There are clearly limits to what arms can be had.
Click to expand...

Semi automatic rifles with high capacity magazine is all we need to maintain liberty and freedom.  Plus a good semi-automatic sidearm and shottie.  Gotta have the shottie.


----------



## ding

Vandalshandle said:


> Drat! And I just invested $400 in new Camos to wear when I play in the woods....





Vandalshandle said:


> If you let me in, I'll Bring my entire collection of Rambo movies!



Let me think about it a minute.

ummmm.... no.


----------



## ding

rightwinger said:


> More gun nut fantasies...  Gubmint fucks wit me, I'm gunna grab my shooting iron and me and the boys will put them in their fucking place  Modern Army with modern weapons and tactics will put you in your place





rightwinger said:


> Red Dawn......Wolverine!



*"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed*_, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; *because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."* - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787_

"I_f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude *that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens*, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist." - - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28_

Now do you understand.


----------



## rightwinger

ding said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> More gun nut fantasies...  Gubmint fucks wit me, I'm gunna grab my shooting iron and me and the boys will put them in their fucking place  Modern Army with modern weapons and tactics will put you in your place
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Red Dawn......Wolverine!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed*_, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; *because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."* - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787_
> 
> "I_f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude *that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens*, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist." - - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28_
> 
> Now do you understand.
Click to expand...


You make it sound like if you take up arms against our country, you will be the good guys...you won't. 

Large numbers of armed citizens without training, leadership, command and control or a logistics system are just targets


----------



## ding

rightwinger said:


> More gun nut fantasies...  Gubmint fucks wit me, I'm gunna grab my shooting iron and me and the boys will put them in their fucking place  Modern Army with modern weapons and tactics will put you in your place





rightwinger said:


> Red Dawn......Wolverine!





ding said:


> *"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed*_, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; *because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."* - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787_
> 
> "I_f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude *that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens*, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist." - - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28_
> 
> Now do you understand.





rightwinger said:


> You make it sound like if you take up arms against our country, you will be the good guys...you won't.
> 
> Large numbers of armed citizens without training, leadership, command and control or a logistics system are just targets



Why would I need to take up arms against my country?  Like I've already mentioned at least 5 times in this thread, before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed.  Do you think you know something I don't, skippy?

Now do you understand?


----------



## Dr Grump

ding said:


> It does negate your point if your point  is that citizens are not allowed to own guns unless they are in a militia.



That is my point. Why put the word 'militia' in in the first place? Why not say "All free People, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

it's superfluous otherwise.


----------



## Skull Pilot

rightwinger said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> More gun nut fantasies...  Gubmint fucks wit me, I'm gunna grab my shooting iron and me and the boys will put them in their fucking place  Modern Army with modern weapons and tactics will put you in your place
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Red Dawn......Wolverine!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed*_, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; *because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."* - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787_
> 
> "I_f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude *that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens*, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist." - - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28_
> 
> Now do you understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You make it sound like if you take up arms against our country, you will be the good guys...you won't.
> 
> Large numbers of armed citizens without training, leadership, command and control or a logistics system are just targets
Click to expand...


That's just more of the never gonna happen shit you people love to use as fact like Trump will start a nuclear war

The overwhelming majority of gun owners have no fantasies about taking up arms against the government they like me just know that the government cannot protect you and your family when it is needed the most


----------



## frigidweirdo

ding said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No mind reader, and you clearly didn't read what I had actually written either. You decided what I had written meant something that it didn't say. It happens too much for me not to get annoyed at it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am absolutely 100% positive that I read every single word.
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well it's not what light infantry would have. It was always the weapons that citizens carried around in their normal daily life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read militia as light infantry because that's what a militia is.
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say there was a limitation on the number of arms. I said what the Amendment means, which is that the feds can't prevent individuals from having arms. If you have a handgun, have I prevented you from having arms? No, I have not. If I prevent you having two guns, am I preventing you from having arms? No, I'm not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, yes.  Yes to are preventing me from having arms.  Allowing one and preventing another still is preventing arms.  The dead give way is the word preventing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe you read every word, however a lot of people end up thinking from their preconceived ideas on the subject, rather than trying to understand what is actually there.
> 
> The militia isn't "light infantry" at all. The militia is a citizen army. You look at rebel groups, which is what the militia would become if it ever had to fight against the US armed forces, and you see that they use all sorts of weaponry. However in the modern era they'd need more than just guns. In the past it was merely the sort of guns that people had for normal use, and that would be handguns for the most part.
> 
> No, allowing one and banning another is NOT preventing you from having arms. It is preventing you from having specific arms. However no one has ever argued that individuals be allowed to have nuclear weaponry, SAM missiles, or other such things. There are clearly limits to what arms can be had.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Semi automatic rifles with high capacity magazine is all we need to maintain liberty and freedom.  Plus a good semi-automatic sidearm and shottie.  Gotta have the shottie.
Click to expand...


Liberty and freedom huh? A murder rate 4 times the norm is what you get with less than that. You'd not get liberty and freedom, but fear and killing. 

Ever wondered why the US has the highest murder rate in the first world? And why the Americas are much worse than other continents?


----------



## there4eyeM

At the end of the 18th century, an armed group could hypothetically have matched a professional army though Shay's Rebellion didn't turn out well). Romantic ideas of how today's over-armed vigilantes might resist a modern force are silly at best.


----------



## Skull Pilot

frigidweirdo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No mind reader, and you clearly didn't read what I had actually written either. You decided what I had written meant something that it didn't say. It happens too much for me not to get annoyed at it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am absolutely 100% positive that I read every single word.
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well it's not what light infantry would have. It was always the weapons that citizens carried around in their normal daily life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read militia as light infantry because that's what a militia is.
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say there was a limitation on the number of arms. I said what the Amendment means, which is that the feds can't prevent individuals from having arms. If you have a handgun, have I prevented you from having arms? No, I have not. If I prevent you having two guns, am I preventing you from having arms? No, I'm not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, yes.  Yes to are preventing me from having arms.  Allowing one and preventing another still is preventing arms.  The dead give way is the word preventing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe you read every word, however a lot of people end up thinking from their preconceived ideas on the subject, rather than trying to understand what is actually there.
> 
> The militia isn't "light infantry" at all. The militia is a citizen army. You look at rebel groups, which is what the militia would become if it ever had to fight against the US armed forces, and you see that they use all sorts of weaponry. However in the modern era they'd need more than just guns. In the past it was merely the sort of guns that people had for normal use, and that would be handguns for the most part.
> 
> No, allowing one and banning another is NOT preventing you from having arms. It is preventing you from having specific arms. However no one has ever argued that individuals be allowed to have nuclear weaponry, SAM missiles, or other such things. There are clearly limits to what arms can be had.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Semi automatic rifles with high capacity magazine is all we need to maintain liberty and freedom.  Plus a good semi-automatic sidearm and shottie.  Gotta have the shottie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liberty and freedom huh? A murder rate 4 times the norm is what you get with less than that. You'd not get liberty and freedom, but fear and killing.
> 
> Ever wondered why the US has the highest murder rate in the first world? And why the Americas are much worse than other continents?
Click to expand...

the norm?

What is the norm?

FYI our murder rate is the same as it was in 1950 and is still declining despite the liberal murder capital of Chicago and other high crime cities

and another FYI the murder rate of the UK is the same as ir was in 1950 despite the draconian gun control laws passed in the 60's


----------



## Skull Pilot

A study undertaken by the Geneva Declaration on Armed Violence and Development estimated that there were approximately 490,000 intentional homicides in 2004. The study estimated that the global rate was 7.6 intentional homicides per 100,000 inhabitants for 2004.[5] UNODC (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime) reported a global average intentional homicide rate of 6.2 per 100,000 population for 2012 (in their report titled "Global Study on Homicide 2013").[6][7] UNODC calculated a rate of 6.9 in 2010.[8]

It seems the "norm" for murders in the world is higher than the US murder rate


----------



## ding

Dr Grump said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> It does negate your point if your point  is that citizens are not allowed to own guns unless they are in a militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is my point. Why put the word 'militia' in in the first place? Why not say "All free People, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> it's superfluous otherwise.
Click to expand...

Not exactly.  Citizens acting as a militia conveys cause.  Since it was believed that the whole body of the people are the militia, I believe it conveys that the whole body of the people have the right, acting as a Constitutionally valid militia, to rise up against a tyrannical government.  In effect, our Founding Fathers needed to write the DOI for their authority to rise up and overthrow their tyrannical government.  We the people do not because that authority has already been given to us in the 2nd Amendment.


----------



## ding

frigidweirdo said:


> Liberty and freedom huh? A murder rate 4 times the norm is what you get with less than that. You'd not get liberty and freedom, but fear and killing.
> 
> Ever wondered why the US has the highest murder rate in the first world? And why the Americas are much worse than other continents?



Gun violence and gun accidents are a cost of freedom and liberty.   If you are truly concerned about the murder rate with guns, you would be more concerned with inner city violence which is why our murder rate is so high.  I'll provide the numbers for you after I get back from work.


----------



## rightwinger

ding said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> More gun nut fantasies...  Gubmint fucks wit me, I'm gunna grab my shooting iron and me and the boys will put them in their fucking place  Modern Army with modern weapons and tactics will put you in your place
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Red Dawn......Wolverine!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed*_, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; *because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."* - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787_
> 
> "I_f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude *that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens*, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist." - - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28_
> 
> Now do you understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> You make it sound like if you take up arms against our country, you will be the good guys...you won't.
> 
> Large numbers of armed citizens without training, leadership, command and control or a logistics system are just targets
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would I need to take up arms against my country?  Like I've already mentioned at least 5 times in this thread, before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed.  Do you think you know something I don't, skippy?
> 
> Now do you understand?
Click to expand...


No people do not need to be disarmed. Their ability to form an effective fighting force is limited. An army is more than a "bunch of guys with guns"  It takes training, tactics, communications, command and control plus the all important logistics
Most importantly it takes a willingness to die for your cause.....something our gun nuts lack


----------



## rightwinger

Dr Grump said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> It does negate your point if your point  is that citizens are not allowed to own guns unless they are in a militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is my point. Why put the word 'militia' in in the first place? Why not say "All free People, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> it's superfluous otherwise.
Click to expand...


Militias served a limited role in the Revolution and those were "Well regulated militias" that had a command structure, training and weapons equivalent to the enemy.....even then, they were routinely routed by the British


----------



## Boss

frigidweirdo said:


> Liberty and freedom huh? A murder rate 4 times the norm is what you get with less than that. You'd not get liberty and freedom, but fear and killing.
> 
> Ever wondered why the US has the highest murder rate in the first world? And why the Americas are much worse than other continents?




Where do you get your bogus data? According to the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, the US ranks 108th in intentional homicides at 3.9 per 100k. That's around middle of the pack. 
List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia


----------



## rightwinger

Boss said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberty and freedom huh? A murder rate 4 times the norm is what you get with less than that. You'd not get liberty and freedom, but fear and killing.
> 
> Ever wondered why the US has the highest murder rate in the first world? And why the Americas are much worse than other continents?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you get your bogus data? According to the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, the US ranks 108th in intentional homicides at 3.9 per 100k. That's around middle of the pack.
> List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia
Click to expand...


Middle of the pack is good enough?

Look at the third world countries that we are better than....make you proud?


----------



## Boss

rightwinger said:


> Middle of the pack is good enough?
> 
> Look at the third world countries that we are better than....make you proud?



He said "highest in the first world" and "4 times the norm" which are incorrect. I was correcting the record. 

Yes, I think middle of the pack is good enough to make the argument for our freedom to bear arms. When you remove the gang and crime-related murders, I imagine we're down near the bottom of the list.


----------



## Boss

rightwinger said:


> Middle of the pack is good enough?
> 
> Look at the third world countries that we are better than....make you proud?



According to the anti-gun liberal argument, Chicago, Illinois should have the lowest violent crime rate in America because Illinois has the strictest gun laws in the country. However, statistics show that not to be the case at all. More people have been killed in Chicago this year than soldiers in Afghanistan.


----------



## rightwinger

Boss said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Middle of the pack is good enough?
> 
> Look at the third world countries that we are better than....make you proud?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to the anti-gun liberal argument, Chicago, Illinois should have the lowest violent crime rate in America because Illinois has the strictest gun laws in the country. However, statistics show that not to be the case at all. More people have been killed in Chicago this year than soldiers in Afghanistan.
Click to expand...


Yea....maybe if Trump built a wall around Chicago and we could restrict guns

But our 32,000 gun fatalities a year go well beyond the gang bangers. They include suicides, domestic violence, criminal uses, accidents

Having a gun in a volatile situation rarely makes it better


----------



## Boss

rightwinger said:


> Yea....maybe if Trump built a wall around Chicago and we could restrict guns
> 
> But our 32,000 gun fatalities a year go well beyond the gang bangers. They include suicides, domestic violence, criminal uses, accidents
> 
> Having a gun in a volatile situation rarely makes it better




LOL... According to Hillary they're toddlers!   

I doubt many suicides would be prevented because the person didn't have a gun. I also doubt that many domestic violence deaths would be prevented because there wasn't a gun available. According to the Bible, the first domestic violence murder was done with a rock.  People are gonna do what they're gonna do. 

Having a gun in a situation where you need to defend yourself usually works out better.


----------



## rightwinger

Boss said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea....maybe if Trump built a wall around Chicago and we could restrict guns
> 
> But our 32,000 gun fatalities a year go well beyond the gang bangers. They include suicides, domestic violence, criminal uses, accidents
> 
> Having a gun in a volatile situation rarely makes it better
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL... According to Hillary they're toddlers!
> 
> I doubt many suicides would be prevented because the person didn't have a gun. I also doubt that many domestic violence deaths would be prevented because there wasn't a gun available. According to the Bible, the first domestic violence murder was done with a rock.  People are gonna do what they're gonna do.
> 
> Having a gun in a situation where you need to defend yourself usually works out better.
Click to expand...


Gun makes a big difference and its results are generally permanent

Try to kill yourself with pills and you have an hour to change your mind....with a gun, you have a split second


----------



## Skull Pilot

rightwinger said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberty and freedom huh? A murder rate 4 times the norm is what you get with less than that. You'd not get liberty and freedom, but fear and killing.
> 
> Ever wondered why the US has the highest murder rate in the first world? And why the Americas are much worse than other continents?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you get your bogus data? According to the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, the US ranks 108th in intentional homicides at 3.9 per 100k. That's around middle of the pack.
> List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Middle of the pack is good enough?
> 
> Look at the third world countries that we are better than....make you proud?
Click to expand...


Gun control doesn't reduce the murder rate

We have the exact same murder rate as we did in 1950 despite the thousands of gun laws enacted in the last 60 years

The UK has the same murder rate it did in 1950 despite the passing the most draconian gun laws in their history in the 1960's


----------



## rightwinger

In actuality....our founders were wrong on the second amendment

_A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State........_

In practice, militias, regulated or not are not necessary to the security of a free State. The US has never relied on militias to provide our security. No other free state in the world uses militias for security

In todays world, the idea of an impromptu militia is unworkable and has been abandoned for over 150 years


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

ding said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No mind reader, and you clearly didn't read what I had actually written either. You decided what I had written meant something that it didn't say. It happens too much for me not to get annoyed at it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am absolutely 100% positive that I read every single word.
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well it's not what light infantry would have. It was always the weapons that citizens carried around in their normal daily life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read militia as light infantry because that's what a militia is.
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say there was a limitation on the number of arms. I said what the Amendment means, which is that the feds can't prevent individuals from having arms. If you have a handgun, have I prevented you from having arms? No, I have not. If I prevent you having two guns, am I preventing you from having arms? No, I'm not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, yes.  Yes to are preventing me from having arms.  Allowing one and preventing another still is preventing arms.  The dead give way is the word preventing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe you read every word, however a lot of people end up thinking from their preconceived ideas on the subject, rather than trying to understand what is actually there.
> 
> The militia isn't "light infantry" at all. The militia is a citizen army. You look at rebel groups, which is what the militia would become if it ever had to fight against the US armed forces, and you see that they use all sorts of weaponry. However in the modern era they'd need more than just guns. In the past it was merely the sort of guns that people had for normal use, and that would be handguns for the most part.
> 
> No, allowing one and banning another is NOT preventing you from having arms. It is preventing you from having specific arms. However no one has ever argued that individuals be allowed to have nuclear weaponry, SAM missiles, or other such things. There are clearly limits to what arms can be had.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Semi automatic rifles with high capacity magazine is all we need to maintain liberty and freedom.  Plus a good semi-automatic sidearm and shottie.  Gotta have the shottie.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

Following Constitutional jurisprudence and the rule of law is all we need to maintain liberty and freedom; and that starts with acknowledging the fact that the Second Amendment doesn’t ‘trump’ the First, as there can be no just and proper ‘armed rebellion’ absent the consent of the people.


----------



## Boss

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Following Constitutional jurisprudence and the rule of law is all we need to maintain liberty and freedom; and that starts with acknowledging the fact that the Second Amendment doesn’t ‘trump’ the First, as there can be no just and proper ‘armed rebellion’ absent the consent of the people.



The so-called "rule of law" becomes nullified once a tyrannical regime takes over our government and that's what people are talking about here. You and other shitstain liberals want to envision some right-wing redneck uprising where Billy Bob and Bubba grab their shotguns and head to Washington to get that danged old Commie who got themselves elected... .that's NOT the scenario in question. 

 So we are talking about two entirely different types of event and that needs to be very clearly stipulated here. We have a democratic political process for change of power in government and as long as that is working and functioning as it is supposed to, there is no "tyrannical takeover" and no need for armed rebellion. Those making the argument for defending the country against a tyrannic government are specifically talking about a hostile takeover by an enemy of state. Like, if the Taliban came, went to Washington and killed everyone in Congress and seized the power of government. That's not very likely to happen but if it did, we could defend ourselves. That's the essence of the 2nd Amendment argument.


----------



## Tennyson

Boss said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Following Constitutional jurisprudence and the rule of law is all we need to maintain liberty and freedom; and that starts with acknowledging the fact that the Second Amendment doesn’t ‘trump’ the First, as there can be no just and proper ‘armed rebellion’ absent the consent of the people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The so-called "rule of law" becomes nullified once a tyrannical regime takes over our government and that's what people are talking about here. You and other shitstain liberals want to envision some right-wing redneck uprising where Billy Bob and Bubba grab their shotguns and head to Washington to get that danged old Commie who got themselves elected... .that's NOT the scenario in question.
> 
> So we are talking about two entirely different types of event and that needs to be very clearly stipulated here. We have a democratic political process for change of power in government and as long as that is working and functioning as it is supposed to, there is no "tyrannical takeover" and no need for armed rebellion. Those making the argument for defending the country against a tyrannic government are specifically talking about a hostile takeover by an enemy of state. Like, if the Taliban came, went to Washington and killed everyone in Congress and seized the power of government. That's not very likely to happen but if it did, we could defend ourselves. That's the essence of the 2nd Amendment argument.
Click to expand...


These living constitution advocates cannot connect the dots that the rule of law and a living constitution are two seperate concepts. 

Living constitution, mob rule, stare decisis, common law doctrine to bind constitutional law, and case law dependency are all antithetical to a written constitution.


----------



## ding

rightwinger said:


> No people do not need to be disarmed. Their ability to form an effective fighting force is limited. An army is more than a "bunch of guys with guns" It takes training, tactics, communications, command and control plus the all important logistics
> Most importantly it takes a willingness to die for your cause.....something our gun nuts lack



The Founding Fathers disagree with you, amigo.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Skull Pilot said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No mind reader, and you clearly didn't read what I had actually written either. You decided what I had written meant something that it didn't say. It happens too much for me not to get annoyed at it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am absolutely 100% positive that I read every single word.
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well it's not what light infantry would have. It was always the weapons that citizens carried around in their normal daily life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read militia as light infantry because that's what a militia is.
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say there was a limitation on the number of arms. I said what the Amendment means, which is that the feds can't prevent individuals from having arms. If you have a handgun, have I prevented you from having arms? No, I have not. If I prevent you having two guns, am I preventing you from having arms? No, I'm not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, yes.  Yes to are preventing me from having arms.  Allowing one and preventing another still is preventing arms.  The dead give way is the word preventing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe you read every word, however a lot of people end up thinking from their preconceived ideas on the subject, rather than trying to understand what is actually there.
> 
> The militia isn't "light infantry" at all. The militia is a citizen army. You look at rebel groups, which is what the militia would become if it ever had to fight against the US armed forces, and you see that they use all sorts of weaponry. However in the modern era they'd need more than just guns. In the past it was merely the sort of guns that people had for normal use, and that would be handguns for the most part.
> 
> No, allowing one and banning another is NOT preventing you from having arms. It is preventing you from having specific arms. However no one has ever argued that individuals be allowed to have nuclear weaponry, SAM missiles, or other such things. There are clearly limits to what arms can be had.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Semi automatic rifles with high capacity magazine is all we need to maintain liberty and freedom.  Plus a good semi-automatic sidearm and shottie.  Gotta have the shottie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liberty and freedom huh? A murder rate 4 times the norm is what you get with less than that. You'd not get liberty and freedom, but fear and killing.
> 
> Ever wondered why the US has the highest murder rate in the first world? And why the Americas are much worse than other continents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the norm?
> 
> What is the norm?
> 
> FYI our murder rate is the same as it was in 1950 and is still declining despite the liberal murder capital of Chicago and other high crime cities
> 
> and another FYI the murder rate of the UK is the same as ir was in 1950 despite the draconian gun control laws passed in the 60's
Click to expand...


The norm is this:

List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia

The UK murder rate 0.9
France 1.2
Germany 0.9
Austria 0.5
Belgium 1.8
Luxembourg 0.8
Netherlands 0.7
Switzerland 0.5
Australia 1.0
New Zealand 0.9
Italy 0.8
Spain 0.7
Japan 0.3
South Korea 0.7
Canada 1.4

Here is NORMAL for FIRST WORLD countries

The USA 3.9

Yeah, the US's murder rate is 2.1 higher than the next highest, and Belgium's rate was probably high for one year due to some unexpected attack or other, rather than a normal yearly rate. The US's rate is consistently higher than every other first world country, and by a long way. I mean, it's more than double Belgium's rate for this particular year, and is 4 times higher than most. 

Yes, the US's murder rate is declining. FYI the murder rates of most countries are declining too. Why? Probably due to modern entertainment. Since the 1990s murder rates have been going down across the board. That doesn't stop the US having a disproportional murder rate, and the difference appears to be guns in society. 

The UK's murder might be the same, or even slightly higher than it was in the 1950s. But that doesn't tell me much at all.

BBC - Mark Easton's UK: The history of homicide

"For England, the risk of homicide falls from 1.7 (in the 1840s) to 0.7 (mid-20th Century) and back up again as we approach the present day."

So, the murder rate fell into the modern era, and then has had fluctuations, most recently due to a surge in gun violence that has been tackled and the stats have dropped, the reports in the media have dropped, the crimes have dropped. 







Homicide Rate (per 100,000),     1950–2014

Then again the US murder rate isn't much different.

In 1950 the US murder rate was 4.6, today it's like 3.9. That's a slight fall. US murder rates were more or less steady until the mid 1960s, then rose to a high in 1980 of 10.2 and then began to drop with the 1990s and new entertainment being more available. 

What you're trying to claim isn't so. Most countries have seen a similar pattern, but we're still having the US with guns with a higher murder rate in the 1950s and the 1980s and the 2010s. Both saw a doubling in murder rates, both saw a drop. There's only one constant in the whole affair. GUNS.


----------



## ding

rightwinger said:


> But our 32,000 gun fatalities a year go well beyond the gang bangers. They include suicides, domestic violence, criminal uses, accidents
> 
> Having a gun in a volatile situation rarely makes it better


You are so desperate to make your point that you have included suicides. 

According to the FBI, in 2014 there were 12,253 murders which is a 3.88 murder rate per 100,000 persons.  Of these 12,253 murders, 7,763 were committed with a handgun for a 2.46 murder rate per 100,000 persons, 383 were committed with a rifle for a 0.12 murder rate per 100,000 persons, 308 were committed with a shotgun for a 0.10 murder rate per 100,000 persons.  Knives, other weapons and hands/fists accounted for 3,799 murders for a 1.2 murder rate per 100,000 persons.  So the murder rate for guns was 2.67 per 100,000 persons.


----------



## frigidweirdo

ding said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberty and freedom huh? A murder rate 4 times the norm is what you get with less than that. You'd not get liberty and freedom, but fear and killing.
> 
> Ever wondered why the US has the highest murder rate in the first world? And why the Americas are much worse than other continents?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gun violence and gun accidents are a cost of freedom and liberty.   If you are truly concerned about the murder rate with guns, you would be more concerned with inner city violence which is why our murder rate is so high.  I'll provide the numbers for you after I get back from work.
Click to expand...


Are they? They are to a certain extent, but then again the Brits, the western Europeans, the Canadians, the Australians etc have the same freedom and yet have LESS gun violence and don't have tyrannical govts (well, not any more tyrannical than the US's, in some regardless less tyrannical).

List of freedom indices - Wikipedia

You can see the middle one, Australia is free but the US is "mostly free". 

Hmm, and yet less gun violence. 

Yes, I'm concerned with inner city violence, it happens in the UK, France and the US, but the rates in the US are higher across the board. In fact the US only have one city above 250,000 people with a murder rate that is lower than the UK's murder rate. ONE CITY. 

But it appears you're trying to pass off the fact that the US has a high rate of murder, and you're unwilling to see that the only difference is guns.


----------



## ding

Blacks committed 4 times the per capita murders with guns than the national average.  If blacks had just committed murders at the rate of the national average, our gun death rate would have dropped from 2.67 murders per 100,000 persons to 1.76 murders per 100,000 persons.

So when liberals talk about taking guns away, that is code for taking guns away from blacks.


----------



## ding

frigidweirdo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberty and freedom huh? A murder rate 4 times the norm is what you get with less than that. You'd not get liberty and freedom, but fear and killing.
> 
> Ever wondered why the US has the highest murder rate in the first world? And why the Americas are much worse than other continents?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gun violence and gun accidents are a cost of freedom and liberty.   If you are truly concerned about the murder rate with guns, you would be more concerned with inner city violence which is why our murder rate is so high.  I'll provide the numbers for you after I get back from work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are they? They are to a certain extent, but then again the Brits, the western Europeans, the Canadians, the Australians etc have the same freedom and yet have LESS gun violence and don't have tyrannical govts (well, not any more tyrannical than the US's, in some regardless less tyrannical).
> 
> List of freedom indices - Wikipedia
> 
> You can see the middle one, Australia is free but the US is "mostly free".
> 
> Hmm, and yet less gun violence.
> 
> Yes, I'm concerned with inner city violence, it happens in the UK, France and the US, but the rates in the US are higher across the board. In fact the US only have one city above 250,000 people with a murder rate that is lower than the UK's murder rate. ONE CITY.
> 
> But it appears you're trying to pass off the fact that the US has a high rate of murder, and you're unwilling to see that the only difference is guns.
Click to expand...

Sorry, bruv, gun violence and gun accidents are the price of freedom and liberty.


----------



## Vandalshandle

ding said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberty and freedom huh? A murder rate 4 times the norm is what you get with less than that. You'd not get liberty and freedom, but fear and killing.
> 
> Ever wondered why the US has the highest murder rate in the first world? And why the Americas are much worse than other continents?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gun violence and gun accidents are a cost of freedom and liberty.   If you are truly concerned about the murder rate with guns, you would be more concerned with inner city violence which is why our murder rate is so high.  I'll provide the numbers for you after I get back from work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are they? They are to a certain extent, but then again the Brits, the western Europeans, the Canadians, the Australians etc have the same freedom and yet have LESS gun violence and don't have tyrannical govts (well, not any more tyrannical than the US's, in some regardless less tyrannical).
> 
> List of freedom indices - Wikipedia
> 
> You can see the middle one, Australia is free but the US is "mostly free".
> 
> Hmm, and yet less gun violence.
> 
> Yes, I'm concerned with inner city violence, it happens in the UK, France and the US, but the rates in the US are higher across the board. In fact the US only have one city above 250,000 people with a murder rate that is lower than the UK's murder rate. ONE CITY.
> 
> But it appears you're trying to pass off the fact that the US has a high rate of murder, and you're unwilling to see that the only difference is guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, bruv, gun violence and gun accidents are the price of freedom and liberty.
Click to expand...


That is, indeed, what the racists used to teach us during the civil rights struggle in the South, but that damned traitor, JFK, nationalized the national guard  and crushed our freedom to lynch negros and kill Yankee civil rights workers. They also did the same thing at all the riots in 1967-1970. Didn't seem fair that they used tanks, and the freedom loving patriots only had rifles and handguns:


----------



## ding

Vandalshandle said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberty and freedom huh? A murder rate 4 times the norm is what you get with less than that. You'd not get liberty and freedom, but fear and killing.
> 
> Ever wondered why the US has the highest murder rate in the first world? And why the Americas are much worse than other continents?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gun violence and gun accidents are a cost of freedom and liberty.   If you are truly concerned about the murder rate with guns, you would be more concerned with inner city violence which is why our murder rate is so high.  I'll provide the numbers for you after I get back from work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are they? They are to a certain extent, but then again the Brits, the western Europeans, the Canadians, the Australians etc have the same freedom and yet have LESS gun violence and don't have tyrannical govts (well, not any more tyrannical than the US's, in some regardless less tyrannical).
> 
> List of freedom indices - Wikipedia
> 
> You can see the middle one, Australia is free but the US is "mostly free".
> 
> Hmm, and yet less gun violence.
> 
> Yes, I'm concerned with inner city violence, it happens in the UK, France and the US, but the rates in the US are higher across the board. In fact the US only have one city above 250,000 people with a murder rate that is lower than the UK's murder rate. ONE CITY.
> 
> But it appears you're trying to pass off the fact that the US has a high rate of murder, and you're unwilling to see that the only difference is guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, bruv, gun violence and gun accidents are the price of freedom and liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is, indeed, what the racists used to teach us during the civil rights struggle in the South, but that damned traitor, JFK, nationalized the national guard  and crushed our freedom to lynch negros and kill Yankee civil rights workers. They also did the same thing at all the riots in 1967-1970. Didn't seem fair that they used tanks, and the freedom loving patriots only had rifles and handguns:
Click to expand...

You mean racist like these guys?

So when did blacks start voting for Democrats? When reconstruction ended and federal troops were pulled back. Why did they start voting for Democrats? That's easy. They did so to keep from getting lynched. There are 13 Congressional Volumes which detail how the KKK was formed as the terrorist wing of the Democratic Party for the express purpose of taking back their statehouses from BLACK REPUBLICANS through force and intimidation.

Full text of "Report of the Joint select committee appointed to inquire in to the condition of affairs in the late insurrectionary states : so far as regards the execution of the laws, and the safety of the lives and property of the citizens of the United States and Testimony taken"

Black political participation in Reconstruction | The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History

"Blacks made up the overwhelming majority of southern Republican voters, forming a coalition with “carpetbaggers” and “scalawags” (derogatory terms referring to recent arrivals from the North and southern white Republicans, respectively). A total of 265 African-American delegates were elected, more than 100 of whom had been born into slavery. Almost half of the elected black delegates served in South Carolina and Louisiana, where blacks had the longest history of political organization; in most other states, African Americans were underrepresented compared to their population. In all, 16 African Americans served in the U.S. Congress during Reconstruction; more than 600 more were elected to the state legislatures, and hundreds more held local offices across the South."

Articles: The Secret Racist History of the Democratic Party

"In almost every Southern state, the Republican Party was actually formed by blacks, not whites. Case in point is Houston, Texas, where 150 blacks and 20 whites created the Republican Party of Texas. But perhaps most telling of all with respect to the Republican Party’s achievements is that black men were continuously elected to public office. For example, 42 blacks were elected to the Texas legislature, 112 in Mississippi, 190 in South Carolina, 95 representatives and 32 senators in Louisiana, and many more elected in other states -- all Republican. Democrats didn’t elect their first black American to the U.S. House until 1935!"

"By the mid-1860s, the Republican Party’s alliance with blacks had caused a noticeable strain on the Democrats’ struggle for electoral significance in the post-Civil War era. This prompted the Democratic Party in 1866 to develop a new pseudo-secret political action group whose sole purpose was to help gain control of the electorate. The new group was known simply by their initials, KKK (Ku Klux Klan). This political relationship was nationally solidified shortly thereafter during the 1868 Democratic National Convention when former Civil War General Nathan Bedford Forrest was honored as the KKK’s first Grand Wizard. But don’t bother checking the Democratic National Committee’s website for proof. For many years, even up through the 2012 Presidential Election, the DNC had omitted all related history from 1848 to 1900 from their timeline -- half a century worth! Nevertheless, this sordid history is still well documented. There’s even a thirteen-volume set of Congressional investigations dating from 1872 detailing the Klan’s connection to the Democratic Party. The official documents, titled Report of the Joint Select Committee to Inquire Into the Condition of Affairs in the Late Insurrectionary States, irrefutably proves the KKK’s prominent role in the Democratic Party."

September 3, 1868

25 African-Americans in the Georgia legislature, all Republicans, were expelled by the Democrat majority. They were later reinstated by a Republican-controlled Congress.

September 12, 1868

Civil rights activist Tunis Campbell and all other African-Americans in the Georgia Senate – all Republicans – were expelled by the Democrat majority. They were later be reinstated by a Republican-controlled Congress.

October 7, 1868

Republicans denounce the Democratic Party’s national campaign theme: “This is a white man’s country: Let white men rule”.

October 22, 1868

While campaigning for re-election, U.S. Rep. James Hinds (R-AR) is assassinated by Democrat terrorists who were organized as the Ku Klux Klan.

December 10, 1869

Republican Gov. John Campbell of Wyoming Territory signs First-in-nation law granting women the right to vote and to hold public office.

February 3, 1870

After passing the U.S. House of Representatives with 98% Republican support and 97% Democrat opposition, the Republicans’ 15th Amendment is ratified, which granted the right to vote to all Americans regardless of race.

May 31, 1870

President Ulysses S. Grant signs the Republicans’ Enforcement Act, providing stiff penalties for depriving civil rights to any Americans.

June 22, 1870

The Republican-controlled Congress creates the U.S. Department of Justice to safeguard the civil rights of African-Americans against Democrats in the South.

September 6, 1870

Women vote in Wyoming during the first election after women’s suffrage legislation was signed into law by Republican Gov. John Campbell.

February 28, 1871

Republican Congress passes Enforcement Act providing federal protection for African-American voters.

April 20, 1871

The Republican-controlled Congress enacts the Ku Klux Klan Act, outlawing Democratic Party-affiliated terrorist groups which oppressed African-Americans.

October 10, 1871

Following warnings by Philadelphia Democrats against blacks voting, African-American Republican civil rights activist Octavius Catto was murdered by a Democratic Party operative, and his military funeral was attended by thousands.

October 18, 1871

After violence was committed against Republicans in South Carolina, Republican President Ulysses S. Grant deploys U.S. troops to combat Democrat terrorists who formed the Ku Klux Klan.

November 18, 1872

Susan B. Anthony arrested for voting, after boasting to Elizabeth Cady Stanton that she voted for “the Republican ticket, straight”.

January 17, 1874

Armed Democrats seize the Texas state government, ending Republican efforts to racially integrate the Texas government.

September 14, 1874

Democrat white supremacists seize Louisiana statehouse in attempt to overthrow the racially-integrated administration of Republican Governor William Kellogg. 27 people were killed.

March 1, 1875

The Civil Rights Act of 1875, guaranteeing access to public accommodations without regard to race, was signed by Republican President Ulysses S. Grant. The law passed with 92% Republican support over 100% Democrat opposition.

"Black men participated in Georgia politics for the first time during Congressional Reconstruction (1867-76). Between 1867 and 1872 sixty-nine African Americans served as delegates to the constitutional convention (1867-68) or as members of the state legislature.

Democrats used terror, intimidation, and the Ku Klux Klan to "redeem" the state. One quarter of the black legislators were killed, threatened, beaten, or jailed. In the December 1870 elections the Democrats won an overwhelming victory. In 1906 W. H. Rogers from McIntosh County was the last black legislator to be elected before blacks were legally disenfranchised in 1908."

Black Legislators during Reconstruction

"One of the most vivid examples of collusion between the KKK and Democratic Party was when Democrat Senator Wade Hampton ran for the governorship of South Carolina in 1876. The Klan put into action a battle plan to help Democrats win, stating: “Every Democrat must feel honor bound to control the vote of at least one Negro by intimidation…. Democrats must go in as large numbers…and well-armed.” An issue of Harper’s Weekly that same year illustrated this mindset with a depiction of two white Democrats standing next to a black man while pointing a gun at him. At the bottom of the depiction is a caption that reads: “Of Course He Wants To Vote The Democratic Ticket!”"

"The Klan’s primary mission was to intimidate Republicans -- black and white. In South Carolina, for example, the Klan even passed out “push cards” -- a hit list of 63 (50 blacks and 13 whites) “Radicals” of the legislature pictured on one side and their names listed on the other. Democrats called Republicans radicals not just because they were a powerful political force, but because they allowed blacks to participate in the political process. Apparently, this was all too much for Democrats to bear.

By 1875, Republicans, both black and white, had worked together to pass over two dozen civil rights bills. Unfortunately, their momentum came to a screeching halt in 1876 when the Democratic Party took control of Congress. Hell bent on preventing blacks from voting, Southern Democrats devised nearly a dozen shady schemes, like requiring literacy tests, misleading election procedures, redrawing election lines, changing polling locations, creating white-only primaries, and even rewriting state constitutions. Talk about disenfranchising black voters!

There were also lynchings, but not what you might think. According to the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law, between 1882 and 1964 an estimated 3,446 blacks and 1,279 whites were lynched at the hands of the Klan."


Articles: The Secret Racist History of the Democratic Party


----------



## Vandalshandle

Ding, 
judging from a quick scan of your talking points, i would say that you are about 38 years old or younger. The political movement of blacks to the democratic party in the South happened in my lifetime. Before that, they did not vote at all. The whites made sure of that.


----------



## Tennyson

The US cannot be compared to other countries regarding guns, homicides, and violent crime. There is a marked difference between the murder rate and violent crime rate in the US between areas with populations over 250,000 and under 250,000. The U.S. has double the crime and murder rate in areas with populations over 250,000. The number of murders in the US in areas with populations under 250,000 is 1.9 percent. the US will have a dramatic increase vis-a-vis other countries regarding violent crime as well. The US has 186 metropolitan areas with populations over 250,000, Sweden has 3, Norway has 1, Finland has 2, and Iceland has 0. In the U.K, there are only 32 areas with populations over 250,000, so their murder rates will be lower, and their violent crime rates should be lower as well, but with only 32 metropolitan areas with populations over 250,000, the U.K. has over 5 times the violent crime rate as the U.S. With 186 metropolitan areas with populations over 250,000, the US will have a dramatic increase vis-a-vis other countries regarding violent crime as well, and these factors will increase a far more potential violent interaction between the population and police, thus a far higher percentage of justified homicides committed by the police.


----------



## ding

Vandalshandle said:


> Ding,
> judging from a quick scan of your talking points, i would say that you are about 38 years old or younger. The political movement of blacks to the democratic party in the South happened in my lifetime. Before that, they did not vote at all. The whites made sure of that.


55, and those whites you talk about... they were all Democrats.  The more Republican the south became the less racist it became.  Furthermore, gun control was done by Democrats to take guns away from blacks.  Republicans fought and won that battle.


----------



## Vandalshandle

ding said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ding,
> judging from a quick scan of your talking points, i would say that you are about 38 years old or younger. The political movement of blacks to the democratic party in the South happened in my lifetime. Before that, they did not vote at all. The whites made sure of that.
> 
> 
> 
> 55, and those whites you talk about... they were all Democrats.  The more Republican the south became the less racist it became.  Furthermore, gun control was done by Democrats to take guns away from blacks.  Republicans fought and won that battle.
Click to expand...


Well, I can see why they gave you a complementary red hat. It is your passport to an alternative universe.


----------



## ding

Vandalshandle said:


> Ding,
> judging from a quick scan of your talking points, i would say that you are about 38 years old or younger. The political movement of blacks to the democratic party in the South happened in my lifetime. Before that, they did not vote at all. The whites made sure of that.


As for blacks not voting... you do realize there was a period of time after the civil war where blacks were the majority in many southern state legislatures.

Black political participation in Reconstruction | The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History

"Blacks made up the overwhelming majority of southern Republican voters, forming a coalition with “carpetbaggers” and “scalawags” (derogatory terms referring to recent arrivals from the North and southern white Republicans, respectively). A total of 265 African-American delegates were elected, more than 100 of whom had been born into slavery. Almost half of the elected black delegates served in South Carolina and Louisiana, where blacks had the longest history of political organization; in most other states, African Americans were underrepresented compared to their population. In all, 16 African Americans served in the U.S. Congress during Reconstruction; more than 600 more were elected to the state legislatures, and hundreds more held local offices across the South."

Articles: The Secret Racist History of the Democratic Party

"In almost every Southern state, the Republican Party was actually formed by blacks, not whites. Case in point is Houston, Texas, where 150 blacks and 20 whites created the Republican Party of Texas. But perhaps most telling of all with respect to the Republican Party’s achievements is that black men were continuously elected to public office. For example, 42 blacks were elected to the Texas legislature, 112 in Mississippi, 190 in South Carolina, 95 representatives and 32 senators in Louisiana, and many more elected in other states -- all Republican. Democrats didn’t elect their first black American to the U.S. House until 1935!"

"By the mid-1860s, the Republican Party’s alliance with blacks had caused a noticeable strain on the Democrats’ struggle for electoral significance in the post-Civil War era. This prompted the Democratic Party in 1866 to develop a new pseudo-secret political action group whose sole purpose was to help gain control of the electorate. The new group was known simply by their initials, KKK (Ku Klux Klan). This political relationship was nationally solidified shortly thereafter during the 1868 Democratic National Convention when former Civil War General Nathan Bedford Forrest was honored as the KKK’s first Grand Wizard. But don’t bother checking the Democratic National Committee’s website for proof. For many years, even up through the 2012 Presidential Election, the DNC had omitted all related history from 1848 to 1900 from their timeline -- half a century worth! Nevertheless, this sordid history is still well documented. There’s even a thirteen-volume set of Congressional investigations dating from 1872 detailing the Klan’s connection to the Democratic Party. The official documents, titled Report of the Joint Select Committee to Inquire Into the Condition of Affairs in the Late Insurrectionary States, irrefutably proves the KKK’s prominent role in the Democratic Party."


----------



## ding

Vandalshandle said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ding,
> judging from a quick scan of your talking points, i would say that you are about 38 years old or younger. The political movement of blacks to the democratic party in the South happened in my lifetime. Before that, they did not vote at all. The whites made sure of that.
> 
> 
> 
> 55, and those whites you talk about... they were all Democrats.  The more Republican the south became the less racist it became.  Furthermore, gun control was done by Democrats to take guns away from blacks.  Republicans fought and won that battle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I can see why they gave you a complementary red hat. It is your passport to an alternative universe.
Click to expand...


Why don't you research it for yourself?  Don't take my word.


----------



## Vandalshandle

I don't have to research racial politics in the South, son. I lived with in in Georgia from 1944 and thereafter. I walked in MLK's funeral procession in 1968 in Atlanta. I seriously doubt if there is anything you can teach me.


----------



## frigidweirdo

ding said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberty and freedom huh? A murder rate 4 times the norm is what you get with less than that. You'd not get liberty and freedom, but fear and killing.
> 
> Ever wondered why the US has the highest murder rate in the first world? And why the Americas are much worse than other continents?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gun violence and gun accidents are a cost of freedom and liberty.   If you are truly concerned about the murder rate with guns, you would be more concerned with inner city violence which is why our murder rate is so high.  I'll provide the numbers for you after I get back from work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are they? They are to a certain extent, but then again the Brits, the western Europeans, the Canadians, the Australians etc have the same freedom and yet have LESS gun violence and don't have tyrannical govts (well, not any more tyrannical than the US's, in some regardless less tyrannical).
> 
> List of freedom indices - Wikipedia
> 
> You can see the middle one, Australia is free but the US is "mostly free".
> 
> Hmm, and yet less gun violence.
> 
> Yes, I'm concerned with inner city violence, it happens in the UK, France and the US, but the rates in the US are higher across the board. In fact the US only have one city above 250,000 people with a murder rate that is lower than the UK's murder rate. ONE CITY.
> 
> But it appears you're trying to pass off the fact that the US has a high rate of murder, and you're unwilling to see that the only difference is guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, bruv, gun violence and gun accidents are the price of freedom and liberty.
Click to expand...


No, like I've told you, Europe and all other first world countries have as much, if not MORE freedom than the US, yet don't have anywhere near that level of gun violence. It's simply not true what you're saying.


----------



## frigidweirdo

ding said:


> Blacks committed 4 times the per capita murders with guns than the national average.  If blacks had just committed murders at the rate of the national average, our gun death rate would have dropped from 2.67 murders per 100,000 persons to 1.76 murders per 100,000 persons.
> 
> So when liberals talk about taking guns away, that is code for taking guns away from blacks.



Then again blacks are far more likely to be in poverty too. White people in poverty are more likely to use guns in crime, as are black people. But then it's easy to just take one statistic and float it around without looking at the whole situation, isn't it?


----------



## frigidweirdo

Vandalshandle said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberty and freedom huh? A murder rate 4 times the norm is what you get with less than that. You'd not get liberty and freedom, but fear and killing.
> 
> Ever wondered why the US has the highest murder rate in the first world? And why the Americas are much worse than other continents?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gun violence and gun accidents are a cost of freedom and liberty.   If you are truly concerned about the murder rate with guns, you would be more concerned with inner city violence which is why our murder rate is so high.  I'll provide the numbers for you after I get back from work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are they? They are to a certain extent, but then again the Brits, the western Europeans, the Canadians, the Australians etc have the same freedom and yet have LESS gun violence and don't have tyrannical govts (well, not any more tyrannical than the US's, in some regardless less tyrannical).
> 
> List of freedom indices - Wikipedia
> 
> You can see the middle one, Australia is free but the US is "mostly free".
> 
> Hmm, and yet less gun violence.
> 
> Yes, I'm concerned with inner city violence, it happens in the UK, France and the US, but the rates in the US are higher across the board. In fact the US only have one city above 250,000 people with a murder rate that is lower than the UK's murder rate. ONE CITY.
> 
> But it appears you're trying to pass off the fact that the US has a high rate of murder, and you're unwilling to see that the only difference is guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, bruv, gun violence and gun accidents are the price of freedom and liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is, indeed, what the racists used to teach us during the civil rights struggle in the South, but that damned traitor, JFK, nationalized the national guard  and crushed our freedom to lynch negros and kill Yankee civil rights workers. They also did the same thing at all the riots in 1967-1970. Didn't seem fair that they used tanks, and the freedom loving patriots only had rifles and handguns:
Click to expand...


Still doing it now.






They go after those they feel they can go after, and the Native Americans are seen as weak.


----------



## Skull Pilot

frigidweirdo said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am absolutely 100% positive that I read every single word.
> 
> I read militia as light infantry because that's what a militia is.
> 
> Actually, yes.  Yes to are preventing me from having arms.  Allowing one and preventing another still is preventing arms.  The dead give way is the word preventing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you read every word, however a lot of people end up thinking from their preconceived ideas on the subject, rather than trying to understand what is actually there.
> 
> The militia isn't "light infantry" at all. The militia is a citizen army. You look at rebel groups, which is what the militia would become if it ever had to fight against the US armed forces, and you see that they use all sorts of weaponry. However in the modern era they'd need more than just guns. In the past it was merely the sort of guns that people had for normal use, and that would be handguns for the most part.
> 
> No, allowing one and banning another is NOT preventing you from having arms. It is preventing you from having specific arms. However no one has ever argued that individuals be allowed to have nuclear weaponry, SAM missiles, or other such things. There are clearly limits to what arms can be had.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Semi automatic rifles with high capacity magazine is all we need to maintain liberty and freedom.  Plus a good semi-automatic sidearm and shottie.  Gotta have the shottie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liberty and freedom huh? A murder rate 4 times the norm is what you get with less than that. You'd not get liberty and freedom, but fear and killing.
> 
> Ever wondered why the US has the highest murder rate in the first world? And why the Americas are much worse than other continents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the norm?
> 
> What is the norm?
> 
> FYI our murder rate is the same as it was in 1950 and is still declining despite the liberal murder capital of Chicago and other high crime cities
> 
> and another FYI the murder rate of the UK is the same as ir was in 1950 despite the draconian gun control laws passed in the 60's
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The norm is this:
> 
> List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia
> 
> The UK murder rate 0.9
> France 1.2
> Germany 0.9
> Austria 0.5
> Belgium 1.8
> Luxembourg 0.8
> Netherlands 0.7
> Switzerland 0.5
> Australia 1.0
> New Zealand 0.9
> Italy 0.8
> Spain 0.7
> Japan 0.3
> South Korea 0.7
> Canada 1.4
> 
> Here is NORMAL for FIRST WORLD countries
> 
> The USA 3.9
> 
> Yeah, the US's murder rate is 2.1 higher than the next highest, and Belgium's rate was probably high for one year due to some unexpected attack or other, rather than a normal yearly rate. The US's rate is consistently higher than every other first world country, and by a long way. I mean, it's more than double Belgium's rate for this particular year, and is 4 times higher than most.
> 
> Yes, the US's murder rate is declining. FYI the murder rates of most countries are declining too. Why? Probably due to modern entertainment. Since the 1990s murder rates have been going down across the board. That doesn't stop the US having a disproportional murder rate, and the difference appears to be guns in society.
> 
> The UK's murder might be the same, or even slightly higher than it was in the 1950s. But that doesn't tell me much at all.
> 
> BBC - Mark Easton's UK: The history of homicide
> 
> "For England, the risk of homicide falls from 1.7 (in the 1840s) to 0.7 (mid-20th Century) and back up again as we approach the present day."
> 
> So, the murder rate fell into the modern era, and then has had fluctuations, most recently due to a surge in gun violence that has been tackled and the stats have dropped, the reports in the media have dropped, the crimes have dropped.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Homicide Rate (per 100,000),     1950–2014
> 
> Then again the US murder rate isn't much different.
> 
> In 1950 the US murder rate was 4.6, today it's like 3.9. That's a slight fall. US murder rates were more or less steady until the mid 1960s, then rose to a high in 1980 of 10.2 and then began to drop with the 1990s and new entertainment being more available.
> 
> What you're trying to claim isn't so. Most countries have seen a similar pattern, but we're still having the US with guns with a higher murder rate in the 1950s and the 1980s and the 2010s. Both saw a doubling in murder rates, both saw a drop. There's only one constant in the whole affair. GUNS.
Click to expand...


guns don't cause murder

there are more guns in this country than ever before and the murder rate continues to drop


----------



## ding

Vandalshandle said:


> I don't have to research racial politics in the South, son. I lived with in in Georgia from 1944 and thereafter. I walked in MLK's funeral procession in 1968 in Atlanta. I seriously doubt if there is anything you can teach me.


Apparently there is.


----------



## ding

frigidweirdo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberty and freedom huh? A murder rate 4 times the norm is what you get with less than that. You'd not get liberty and freedom, but fear and killing.
> 
> Ever wondered why the US has the highest murder rate in the first world? And why the Americas are much worse than other continents?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gun violence and gun accidents are a cost of freedom and liberty.   If you are truly concerned about the murder rate with guns, you would be more concerned with inner city violence which is why our murder rate is so high.  I'll provide the numbers for you after I get back from work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are they? They are to a certain extent, but then again the Brits, the western Europeans, the Canadians, the Australians etc have the same freedom and yet have LESS gun violence and don't have tyrannical govts (well, not any more tyrannical than the US's, in some regardless less tyrannical).
> 
> List of freedom indices - Wikipedia
> 
> You can see the middle one, Australia is free but the US is "mostly free".
> 
> Hmm, and yet less gun violence.
> 
> Yes, I'm concerned with inner city violence, it happens in the UK, France and the US, but the rates in the US are higher across the board. In fact the US only have one city above 250,000 people with a murder rate that is lower than the UK's murder rate. ONE CITY.
> 
> But it appears you're trying to pass off the fact that the US has a high rate of murder, and you're unwilling to see that the only difference is guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, bruv, gun violence and gun accidents are the price of freedom and liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, like I've told you, Europe and all other first world countries have as much, if not MORE freedom than the US, yet don't have anywhere near that level of gun violence. It's simply not true what you're saying.
Click to expand...

That's your opinion.  I don't believe they have more freedom and liberty than we do at all.


----------



## ding

frigidweirdo said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberty and freedom huh? A murder rate 4 times the norm is what you get with less than that. You'd not get liberty and freedom, but fear and killing.
> 
> Ever wondered why the US has the highest murder rate in the first world? And why the Americas are much worse than other continents?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gun violence and gun accidents are a cost of freedom and liberty.   If you are truly concerned about the murder rate with guns, you would be more concerned with inner city violence which is why our murder rate is so high.  I'll provide the numbers for you after I get back from work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are they? They are to a certain extent, but then again the Brits, the western Europeans, the Canadians, the Australians etc have the same freedom and yet have LESS gun violence and don't have tyrannical govts (well, not any more tyrannical than the US's, in some regardless less tyrannical).
> 
> List of freedom indices - Wikipedia
> 
> You can see the middle one, Australia is free but the US is "mostly free".
> 
> Hmm, and yet less gun violence.
> 
> Yes, I'm concerned with inner city violence, it happens in the UK, France and the US, but the rates in the US are higher across the board. In fact the US only have one city above 250,000 people with a murder rate that is lower than the UK's murder rate. ONE CITY.
> 
> But it appears you're trying to pass off the fact that the US has a high rate of murder, and you're unwilling to see that the only difference is guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, bruv, gun violence and gun accidents are the price of freedom and liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is, indeed, what the racists used to teach us during the civil rights struggle in the South, but that damned traitor, JFK, nationalized the national guard  and crushed our freedom to lynch negros and kill Yankee civil rights workers. They also did the same thing at all the riots in 1967-1970. Didn't seem fair that they used tanks, and the freedom loving patriots only had rifles and handguns:
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still doing it now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They go after those they feel they can go after, and the Native Americans are seen as weak.
Click to expand...

You are proving my point.


----------



## rightwinger

ding said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> No people do not need to be disarmed. Their ability to form an effective fighting force is limited. An army is more than a "bunch of guys with guns" It takes training, tactics, communications, command and control plus the all important logistics
> Most importantly it takes a willingness to die for your cause.....something our gun nuts lack
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Founding Fathers disagree with you, amigo.
Click to expand...


History has proven the Founding Fathers wrong

Even in the Revolutionary War where local militias were actually used, they were found to be minimally effective. It was not the local minuteman that won the war.......It was the Continental Army and the French Navy

The Founders disdained the idea of a standing Army....once again, history proved them wrong. Lack of a standing Army almost cost us the country in 1812. We also suffered for it during WWI and WWII

Armies are not a bunch of guys with guns running around and shooting at stuff.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Skull Pilot said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you read every word, however a lot of people end up thinking from their preconceived ideas on the subject, rather than trying to understand what is actually there.
> 
> The militia isn't "light infantry" at all. The militia is a citizen army. You look at rebel groups, which is what the militia would become if it ever had to fight against the US armed forces, and you see that they use all sorts of weaponry. However in the modern era they'd need more than just guns. In the past it was merely the sort of guns that people had for normal use, and that would be handguns for the most part.
> 
> No, allowing one and banning another is NOT preventing you from having arms. It is preventing you from having specific arms. However no one has ever argued that individuals be allowed to have nuclear weaponry, SAM missiles, or other such things. There are clearly limits to what arms can be had.
> 
> 
> 
> Semi automatic rifles with high capacity magazine is all we need to maintain liberty and freedom.  Plus a good semi-automatic sidearm and shottie.  Gotta have the shottie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liberty and freedom huh? A murder rate 4 times the norm is what you get with less than that. You'd not get liberty and freedom, but fear and killing.
> 
> Ever wondered why the US has the highest murder rate in the first world? And why the Americas are much worse than other continents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the norm?
> 
> What is the norm?
> 
> FYI our murder rate is the same as it was in 1950 and is still declining despite the liberal murder capital of Chicago and other high crime cities
> 
> and another FYI the murder rate of the UK is the same as ir was in 1950 despite the draconian gun control laws passed in the 60's
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The norm is this:
> 
> List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia
> 
> The UK murder rate 0.9
> France 1.2
> Germany 0.9
> Austria 0.5
> Belgium 1.8
> Luxembourg 0.8
> Netherlands 0.7
> Switzerland 0.5
> Australia 1.0
> New Zealand 0.9
> Italy 0.8
> Spain 0.7
> Japan 0.3
> South Korea 0.7
> Canada 1.4
> 
> Here is NORMAL for FIRST WORLD countries
> 
> The USA 3.9
> 
> Yeah, the US's murder rate is 2.1 higher than the next highest, and Belgium's rate was probably high for one year due to some unexpected attack or other, rather than a normal yearly rate. The US's rate is consistently higher than every other first world country, and by a long way. I mean, it's more than double Belgium's rate for this particular year, and is 4 times higher than most.
> 
> Yes, the US's murder rate is declining. FYI the murder rates of most countries are declining too. Why? Probably due to modern entertainment. Since the 1990s murder rates have been going down across the board. That doesn't stop the US having a disproportional murder rate, and the difference appears to be guns in society.
> 
> The UK's murder might be the same, or even slightly higher than it was in the 1950s. But that doesn't tell me much at all.
> 
> BBC - Mark Easton's UK: The history of homicide
> 
> "For England, the risk of homicide falls from 1.7 (in the 1840s) to 0.7 (mid-20th Century) and back up again as we approach the present day."
> 
> So, the murder rate fell into the modern era, and then has had fluctuations, most recently due to a surge in gun violence that has been tackled and the stats have dropped, the reports in the media have dropped, the crimes have dropped.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Homicide Rate (per 100,000),     1950–2014
> 
> Then again the US murder rate isn't much different.
> 
> In 1950 the US murder rate was 4.6, today it's like 3.9. That's a slight fall. US murder rates were more or less steady until the mid 1960s, then rose to a high in 1980 of 10.2 and then began to drop with the 1990s and new entertainment being more available.
> 
> What you're trying to claim isn't so. Most countries have seen a similar pattern, but we're still having the US with guns with a higher murder rate in the 1950s and the 1980s and the 2010s. Both saw a doubling in murder rates, both saw a drop. There's only one constant in the whole affair. GUNS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> guns don't cause murder
> 
> there are more guns in this country than ever before and the murder rate continues to drop
Click to expand...


Wow, that's all you've got in response to my post. 

Guns, in the hands of criminals, cause more murders than when criminals don't have guns. Like I said in my post, in all first world countries, murder rates have halved in the last 20-30 years. So, suggesting that because murder rates are dropping in the US means guns aren't a problem is just simply ridiculous.


----------



## frigidweirdo

ding said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberty and freedom huh? A murder rate 4 times the norm is what you get with less than that. You'd not get liberty and freedom, but fear and killing.
> 
> Ever wondered why the US has the highest murder rate in the first world? And why the Americas are much worse than other continents?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gun violence and gun accidents are a cost of freedom and liberty.   If you are truly concerned about the murder rate with guns, you would be more concerned with inner city violence which is why our murder rate is so high.  I'll provide the numbers for you after I get back from work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are they? They are to a certain extent, but then again the Brits, the western Europeans, the Canadians, the Australians etc have the same freedom and yet have LESS gun violence and don't have tyrannical govts (well, not any more tyrannical than the US's, in some regardless less tyrannical).
> 
> List of freedom indices - Wikipedia
> 
> You can see the middle one, Australia is free but the US is "mostly free".
> 
> Hmm, and yet less gun violence.
> 
> Yes, I'm concerned with inner city violence, it happens in the UK, France and the US, but the rates in the US are higher across the board. In fact the US only have one city above 250,000 people with a murder rate that is lower than the UK's murder rate. ONE CITY.
> 
> But it appears you're trying to pass off the fact that the US has a high rate of murder, and you're unwilling to see that the only difference is guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, bruv, gun violence and gun accidents are the price of freedom and liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, like I've told you, Europe and all other first world countries have as much, if not MORE freedom than the US, yet don't have anywhere near that level of gun violence. It's simply not true what you're saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's your opinion.  I don't believe they have more freedom and liberty than we do at all.
Click to expand...


Oh, you don't huh? And why is that? Or are you going to keep that a secret?


----------



## frigidweirdo

ding said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gun violence and gun accidents are a cost of freedom and liberty.   If you are truly concerned about the murder rate with guns, you would be more concerned with inner city violence which is why our murder rate is so high.  I'll provide the numbers for you after I get back from work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are they? They are to a certain extent, but then again the Brits, the western Europeans, the Canadians, the Australians etc have the same freedom and yet have LESS gun violence and don't have tyrannical govts (well, not any more tyrannical than the US's, in some regardless less tyrannical).
> 
> List of freedom indices - Wikipedia
> 
> You can see the middle one, Australia is free but the US is "mostly free".
> 
> Hmm, and yet less gun violence.
> 
> Yes, I'm concerned with inner city violence, it happens in the UK, France and the US, but the rates in the US are higher across the board. In fact the US only have one city above 250,000 people with a murder rate that is lower than the UK's murder rate. ONE CITY.
> 
> But it appears you're trying to pass off the fact that the US has a high rate of murder, and you're unwilling to see that the only difference is guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, bruv, gun violence and gun accidents are the price of freedom and liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is, indeed, what the racists used to teach us during the civil rights struggle in the South, but that damned traitor, JFK, nationalized the national guard  and crushed our freedom to lynch negros and kill Yankee civil rights workers. They also did the same thing at all the riots in 1967-1970. Didn't seem fair that they used tanks, and the freedom loving patriots only had rifles and handguns:
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still doing it now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They go after those they feel they can go after, and the Native Americans are seen as weak.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are proving my point.
Click to expand...


And how is that? 

Because with guns, these guys stand no fucking chance anyway against the US armed forces? You could give them the weaponry of a country like, oh, I don't know, let's say IRAQ, and they'd still get their asses kicked, wouldn't they? 

So what is your point then?


----------



## Skull Pilot

frigidweirdo said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Semi automatic rifles with high capacity magazine is all we need to maintain liberty and freedom.  Plus a good semi-automatic sidearm and shottie.  Gotta have the shottie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberty and freedom huh? A murder rate 4 times the norm is what you get with less than that. You'd not get liberty and freedom, but fear and killing.
> 
> Ever wondered why the US has the highest murder rate in the first world? And why the Americas are much worse than other continents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the norm?
> 
> What is the norm?
> 
> FYI our murder rate is the same as it was in 1950 and is still declining despite the liberal murder capital of Chicago and other high crime cities
> 
> and another FYI the murder rate of the UK is the same as ir was in 1950 despite the draconian gun control laws passed in the 60's
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The norm is this:
> 
> List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia
> 
> The UK murder rate 0.9
> France 1.2
> Germany 0.9
> Austria 0.5
> Belgium 1.8
> Luxembourg 0.8
> Netherlands 0.7
> Switzerland 0.5
> Australia 1.0
> New Zealand 0.9
> Italy 0.8
> Spain 0.7
> Japan 0.3
> South Korea 0.7
> Canada 1.4
> 
> Here is NORMAL for FIRST WORLD countries
> 
> The USA 3.9
> 
> Yeah, the US's murder rate is 2.1 higher than the next highest, and Belgium's rate was probably high for one year due to some unexpected attack or other, rather than a normal yearly rate. The US's rate is consistently higher than every other first world country, and by a long way. I mean, it's more than double Belgium's rate for this particular year, and is 4 times higher than most.
> 
> Yes, the US's murder rate is declining. FYI the murder rates of most countries are declining too. Why? Probably due to modern entertainment. Since the 1990s murder rates have been going down across the board. That doesn't stop the US having a disproportional murder rate, and the difference appears to be guns in society.
> 
> The UK's murder might be the same, or even slightly higher than it was in the 1950s. But that doesn't tell me much at all.
> 
> BBC - Mark Easton's UK: The history of homicide
> 
> "For England, the risk of homicide falls from 1.7 (in the 1840s) to 0.7 (mid-20th Century) and back up again as we approach the present day."
> 
> So, the murder rate fell into the modern era, and then has had fluctuations, most recently due to a surge in gun violence that has been tackled and the stats have dropped, the reports in the media have dropped, the crimes have dropped.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Homicide Rate (per 100,000),     1950–2014
> 
> Then again the US murder rate isn't much different.
> 
> In 1950 the US murder rate was 4.6, today it's like 3.9. That's a slight fall. US murder rates were more or less steady until the mid 1960s, then rose to a high in 1980 of 10.2 and then began to drop with the 1990s and new entertainment being more available.
> 
> What you're trying to claim isn't so. Most countries have seen a similar pattern, but we're still having the US with guns with a higher murder rate in the 1950s and the 1980s and the 2010s. Both saw a doubling in murder rates, both saw a drop. There's only one constant in the whole affair. GUNS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> guns don't cause murder
> 
> there are more guns in this country than ever before and the murder rate continues to drop
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, that's all you've got in response to my post.
> 
> Guns, in the hands of criminals, cause more murders than when criminals don't have guns. Like I said in my post, in all first world countries, murder rates have halved in the last 20-30 years. So, suggesting that because murder rates are dropping in the US means guns aren't a problem is just simply ridiculous.
Click to expand...


They're not the problem
Our piss poor record of keeping criminals incarcerated is the problem

Any crime committed while in possession of a gun should receive an automatic 25 year sentence with no parole
Any murder committed with a gun should receive life in prison no parole

Let's see what that does to our gun crime rate


----------



## rightwinger

Skull Pilot said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberty and freedom huh? A murder rate 4 times the norm is what you get with less than that. You'd not get liberty and freedom, but fear and killing.
> 
> Ever wondered why the US has the highest murder rate in the first world? And why the Americas are much worse than other continents?
> 
> 
> 
> the norm?
> 
> What is the norm?
> 
> FYI our murder rate is the same as it was in 1950 and is still declining despite the liberal murder capital of Chicago and other high crime cities
> 
> and another FYI the murder rate of the UK is the same as ir was in 1950 despite the draconian gun control laws passed in the 60's
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The norm is this:
> 
> List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia
> 
> The UK murder rate 0.9
> France 1.2
> Germany 0.9
> Austria 0.5
> Belgium 1.8
> Luxembourg 0.8
> Netherlands 0.7
> Switzerland 0.5
> Australia 1.0
> New Zealand 0.9
> Italy 0.8
> Spain 0.7
> Japan 0.3
> South Korea 0.7
> Canada 1.4
> 
> Here is NORMAL for FIRST WORLD countries
> 
> The USA 3.9
> 
> Yeah, the US's murder rate is 2.1 higher than the next highest, and Belgium's rate was probably high for one year due to some unexpected attack or other, rather than a normal yearly rate. The US's rate is consistently higher than every other first world country, and by a long way. I mean, it's more than double Belgium's rate for this particular year, and is 4 times higher than most.
> 
> Yes, the US's murder rate is declining. FYI the murder rates of most countries are declining too. Why? Probably due to modern entertainment. Since the 1990s murder rates have been going down across the board. That doesn't stop the US having a disproportional murder rate, and the difference appears to be guns in society.
> 
> The UK's murder might be the same, or even slightly higher than it was in the 1950s. But that doesn't tell me much at all.
> 
> BBC - Mark Easton's UK: The history of homicide
> 
> "For England, the risk of homicide falls from 1.7 (in the 1840s) to 0.7 (mid-20th Century) and back up again as we approach the present day."
> 
> So, the murder rate fell into the modern era, and then has had fluctuations, most recently due to a surge in gun violence that has been tackled and the stats have dropped, the reports in the media have dropped, the crimes have dropped.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Homicide Rate (per 100,000),     1950–2014
> 
> Then again the US murder rate isn't much different.
> 
> In 1950 the US murder rate was 4.6, today it's like 3.9. That's a slight fall. US murder rates were more or less steady until the mid 1960s, then rose to a high in 1980 of 10.2 and then began to drop with the 1990s and new entertainment being more available.
> 
> What you're trying to claim isn't so. Most countries have seen a similar pattern, but we're still having the US with guns with a higher murder rate in the 1950s and the 1980s and the 2010s. Both saw a doubling in murder rates, both saw a drop. There's only one constant in the whole affair. GUNS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> guns don't cause murder
> 
> there are more guns in this country than ever before and the murder rate continues to drop
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, that's all you've got in response to my post.
> 
> Guns, in the hands of criminals, cause more murders than when criminals don't have guns. Like I said in my post, in all first world countries, murder rates have halved in the last 20-30 years. So, suggesting that because murder rates are dropping in the US means guns aren't a problem is just simply ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're not the problem
> Our piss poor record of keeping criminals incarcerated is the problem
> 
> Any crime committed while in possession of a gun should receive an automatic 25 year sentence with no parole
> Any murder committed with a gun should receive life in prison no parole
> 
> Let's see what that does to our gun crime rate
Click to expand...


Our numbers of incarcerations has increased from 500,000 to 2.5 million in the last 30 years. Locking up more people does not seem to be the answer


----------



## Skull Pilot

rightwinger said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> the norm?
> 
> What is the norm?
> 
> FYI our murder rate is the same as it was in 1950 and is still declining despite the liberal murder capital of Chicago and other high crime cities
> 
> and another FYI the murder rate of the UK is the same as ir was in 1950 despite the draconian gun control laws passed in the 60's
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The norm is this:
> 
> List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia
> 
> The UK murder rate 0.9
> France 1.2
> Germany 0.9
> Austria 0.5
> Belgium 1.8
> Luxembourg 0.8
> Netherlands 0.7
> Switzerland 0.5
> Australia 1.0
> New Zealand 0.9
> Italy 0.8
> Spain 0.7
> Japan 0.3
> South Korea 0.7
> Canada 1.4
> 
> Here is NORMAL for FIRST WORLD countries
> 
> The USA 3.9
> 
> Yeah, the US's murder rate is 2.1 higher than the next highest, and Belgium's rate was probably high for one year due to some unexpected attack or other, rather than a normal yearly rate. The US's rate is consistently higher than every other first world country, and by a long way. I mean, it's more than double Belgium's rate for this particular year, and is 4 times higher than most.
> 
> Yes, the US's murder rate is declining. FYI the murder rates of most countries are declining too. Why? Probably due to modern entertainment. Since the 1990s murder rates have been going down across the board. That doesn't stop the US having a disproportional murder rate, and the difference appears to be guns in society.
> 
> The UK's murder might be the same, or even slightly higher than it was in the 1950s. But that doesn't tell me much at all.
> 
> BBC - Mark Easton's UK: The history of homicide
> 
> "For England, the risk of homicide falls from 1.7 (in the 1840s) to 0.7 (mid-20th Century) and back up again as we approach the present day."
> 
> So, the murder rate fell into the modern era, and then has had fluctuations, most recently due to a surge in gun violence that has been tackled and the stats have dropped, the reports in the media have dropped, the crimes have dropped.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Homicide Rate (per 100,000),     1950–2014
> 
> Then again the US murder rate isn't much different.
> 
> In 1950 the US murder rate was 4.6, today it's like 3.9. That's a slight fall. US murder rates were more or less steady until the mid 1960s, then rose to a high in 1980 of 10.2 and then began to drop with the 1990s and new entertainment being more available.
> 
> What you're trying to claim isn't so. Most countries have seen a similar pattern, but we're still having the US with guns with a higher murder rate in the 1950s and the 1980s and the 2010s. Both saw a doubling in murder rates, both saw a drop. There's only one constant in the whole affair. GUNS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> guns don't cause murder
> 
> there are more guns in this country than ever before and the murder rate continues to drop
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, that's all you've got in response to my post.
> 
> Guns, in the hands of criminals, cause more murders than when criminals don't have guns. Like I said in my post, in all first world countries, murder rates have halved in the last 20-30 years. So, suggesting that because murder rates are dropping in the US means guns aren't a problem is just simply ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're not the problem
> Our piss poor record of keeping criminals incarcerated is the problem
> 
> Any crime committed while in possession of a gun should receive an automatic 25 year sentence with no parole
> Any murder committed with a gun should receive life in prison no parole
> 
> Let's see what that does to our gun crime rate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our numbers of incarcerations has increased from 500,000 to 2.5 million in the last 30 years. Locking up more people does not seem to be the answer
Click to expand...


Yeah and what is the average prison sentenced served for violent crimes?

Hint
less than 5 years
Not long enough


----------



## rightwinger

frigidweirdo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are they? They are to a certain extent, but then again the Brits, the western Europeans, the Canadians, the Australians etc have the same freedom and yet have LESS gun violence and don't have tyrannical govts (well, not any more tyrannical than the US's, in some regardless less tyrannical).
> 
> List of freedom indices - Wikipedia
> 
> You can see the middle one, Australia is free but the US is "mostly free".
> 
> Hmm, and yet less gun violence.
> 
> Yes, I'm concerned with inner city violence, it happens in the UK, France and the US, but the rates in the US are higher across the board. In fact the US only have one city above 250,000 people with a murder rate that is lower than the UK's murder rate. ONE CITY.
> 
> But it appears you're trying to pass off the fact that the US has a high rate of murder, and you're unwilling to see that the only difference is guns.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, bruv, gun violence and gun accidents are the price of freedom and liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is, indeed, what the racists used to teach us during the civil rights struggle in the South, but that damned traitor, JFK, nationalized the national guard  and crushed our freedom to lynch negros and kill Yankee civil rights workers. They also did the same thing at all the riots in 1967-1970. Didn't seem fair that they used tanks, and the freedom loving patriots only had rifles and handguns:
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still doing it now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They go after those they feel they can go after, and the Native Americans are seen as weak.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are proving my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And how is that?
> 
> Because with guns, these guys stand no fucking chance anyway against the US armed forces? You could give them the weaponry of a country like, oh, I don't know, let's say IRAQ, and they'd still get their asses kicked, wouldn't they?
> 
> So what is your point then?
Click to expand...


The idea that random gun owners could somehow hold off a modern Army is an NRA fantasy


----------



## there4eyeM

[/QUOTE]History has proven the Founding Fathers wrong

Even in the Revolutionary War where local militias were actually used, they were found to be minimally effective. It was not the local minuteman that won the war.......It was the Continental Army and the French Navy

The Founders disdained the idea of a standing Army....once again, history proved them wrong. Lack of a standing Army almost cost us the country in 1812. We also suffered for it during WWI and WWII

Armies are not a bunch of guys with guns running around and shooting at stuff.[/QUOTE]

Of course, having a standing army is what allowed the Bush League to illegally invade Iraq.


----------



## rightwinger

History has proven the Founding Fathers wrong

Even in the Revolutionary War where local militias were actually used, they were found to be minimally effective. It was not the local minuteman that won the war.......It was the Continental Army and the French Navy

The Founders disdained the idea of a standing Army....once again, history proved them wrong. Lack of a standing Army almost cost us the country in 1812. We also suffered for it during WWI and WWII

Armies are not a bunch of guys with guns running around and shooting at stuff.[/QUOTE]

Of course, having a standing army is what allowed the Bush League to illegally invade Iraq.[/QUOTE]

Also allowed us to invade Normandy

Those were not Minutemen




.


----------



## there4eyeM

The U.S.Army that landed in Normandy was conscripted from a civilian population. It had not been there and, in normal circumstances in American history, would have disappeared after the war. Essentially, America never stood down after WWII.


----------



## Vandalshandle

there4eyeM said:


> The U.S.Army that landed in Normandy was conscripted from a civilian population. It had not been there and, in normal circumstances in American history, would have disappeared after the war. Essentially, America never stood down after WWII.



...and the poor suckers who fell into the trap of collecting a few extra bucks by joining the Army Reserve after WWII found their asses in Korea soon after.

But, the point remains that no "militia" is going to make a stand against the military might of the USA, no matter that American Keyboard Commando Man claims is his reason for sleeping with his guns.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Skull Pilot said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberty and freedom huh? A murder rate 4 times the norm is what you get with less than that. You'd not get liberty and freedom, but fear and killing.
> 
> Ever wondered why the US has the highest murder rate in the first world? And why the Americas are much worse than other continents?
> 
> 
> 
> the norm?
> 
> What is the norm?
> 
> FYI our murder rate is the same as it was in 1950 and is still declining despite the liberal murder capital of Chicago and other high crime cities
> 
> and another FYI the murder rate of the UK is the same as ir was in 1950 despite the draconian gun control laws passed in the 60's
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The norm is this:
> 
> List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia
> 
> The UK murder rate 0.9
> France 1.2
> Germany 0.9
> Austria 0.5
> Belgium 1.8
> Luxembourg 0.8
> Netherlands 0.7
> Switzerland 0.5
> Australia 1.0
> New Zealand 0.9
> Italy 0.8
> Spain 0.7
> Japan 0.3
> South Korea 0.7
> Canada 1.4
> 
> Here is NORMAL for FIRST WORLD countries
> 
> The USA 3.9
> 
> Yeah, the US's murder rate is 2.1 higher than the next highest, and Belgium's rate was probably high for one year due to some unexpected attack or other, rather than a normal yearly rate. The US's rate is consistently higher than every other first world country, and by a long way. I mean, it's more than double Belgium's rate for this particular year, and is 4 times higher than most.
> 
> Yes, the US's murder rate is declining. FYI the murder rates of most countries are declining too. Why? Probably due to modern entertainment. Since the 1990s murder rates have been going down across the board. That doesn't stop the US having a disproportional murder rate, and the difference appears to be guns in society.
> 
> The UK's murder might be the same, or even slightly higher than it was in the 1950s. But that doesn't tell me much at all.
> 
> BBC - Mark Easton's UK: The history of homicide
> 
> "For England, the risk of homicide falls from 1.7 (in the 1840s) to 0.7 (mid-20th Century) and back up again as we approach the present day."
> 
> So, the murder rate fell into the modern era, and then has had fluctuations, most recently due to a surge in gun violence that has been tackled and the stats have dropped, the reports in the media have dropped, the crimes have dropped.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Homicide Rate (per 100,000),     1950–2014
> 
> Then again the US murder rate isn't much different.
> 
> In 1950 the US murder rate was 4.6, today it's like 3.9. That's a slight fall. US murder rates were more or less steady until the mid 1960s, then rose to a high in 1980 of 10.2 and then began to drop with the 1990s and new entertainment being more available.
> 
> What you're trying to claim isn't so. Most countries have seen a similar pattern, but we're still having the US with guns with a higher murder rate in the 1950s and the 1980s and the 2010s. Both saw a doubling in murder rates, both saw a drop. There's only one constant in the whole affair. GUNS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> guns don't cause murder
> 
> there are more guns in this country than ever before and the murder rate continues to drop
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, that's all you've got in response to my post.
> 
> Guns, in the hands of criminals, cause more murders than when criminals don't have guns. Like I said in my post, in all first world countries, murder rates have halved in the last 20-30 years. So, suggesting that because murder rates are dropping in the US means guns aren't a problem is just simply ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're not the problem
> Our piss poor record of keeping criminals incarcerated is the problem
> 
> Any crime committed while in possession of a gun should receive an automatic 25 year sentence with no parole
> Any murder committed with a gun should receive life in prison no parole
> 
> Let's see what that does to our gun crime rate
Click to expand...


Again, if you look at other countries, you see the US has the HIGHEST incarceration rate, possibly in the world, definitely in the First World. Yet other countries manage to have less people incarcerated, less murders, and less guns. So your logic doesn't fit the reality. 

Most people with guns don't seem to think they're going to get caught. The US has been introducing new rules on sentencing with guns in crime, and yet the crime rates have dropped at the same levels as every other first world country.


----------



## Boss

You know what... I wish we could pass a law that every time someone uses the "other countries" argument... we automatically ship those people off to that country and mandate they have to stay there for at least one year before returning. I bet you that would put a stop that crap.


----------



## Skull Pilot

rightwinger said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, bruv, gun violence and gun accidents are the price of freedom and liberty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is, indeed, what the racists used to teach us during the civil rights struggle in the South, but that damned traitor, JFK, nationalized the national guard  and crushed our freedom to lynch negros and kill Yankee civil rights workers. They also did the same thing at all the riots in 1967-1970. Didn't seem fair that they used tanks, and the freedom loving patriots only had rifles and handguns:
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still doing it now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They go after those they feel they can go after, and the Native Americans are seen as weak.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are proving my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And how is that?
> 
> Because with guns, these guys stand no fucking chance anyway against the US armed forces? You could give them the weaponry of a country like, oh, I don't know, let's say IRAQ, and they'd still get their asses kicked, wouldn't they?
> 
> So what is your point then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The idea that random gun owners could somehow hold off a modern Army is an NRA fantasy
Click to expand...

and funny how no one I know in the NRA says anything about taking on the government

I hate to burst your bubble but the vast majority of gun owners don't have fantasies of going to war with the US government


----------



## Skull Pilot

frigidweirdo said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> the norm?
> 
> What is the norm?
> 
> FYI our murder rate is the same as it was in 1950 and is still declining despite the liberal murder capital of Chicago and other high crime cities
> 
> and another FYI the murder rate of the UK is the same as ir was in 1950 despite the draconian gun control laws passed in the 60's
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The norm is this:
> 
> List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia
> 
> The UK murder rate 0.9
> France 1.2
> Germany 0.9
> Austria 0.5
> Belgium 1.8
> Luxembourg 0.8
> Netherlands 0.7
> Switzerland 0.5
> Australia 1.0
> New Zealand 0.9
> Italy 0.8
> Spain 0.7
> Japan 0.3
> South Korea 0.7
> Canada 1.4
> 
> Here is NORMAL for FIRST WORLD countries
> 
> The USA 3.9
> 
> Yeah, the US's murder rate is 2.1 higher than the next highest, and Belgium's rate was probably high for one year due to some unexpected attack or other, rather than a normal yearly rate. The US's rate is consistently higher than every other first world country, and by a long way. I mean, it's more than double Belgium's rate for this particular year, and is 4 times higher than most.
> 
> Yes, the US's murder rate is declining. FYI the murder rates of most countries are declining too. Why? Probably due to modern entertainment. Since the 1990s murder rates have been going down across the board. That doesn't stop the US having a disproportional murder rate, and the difference appears to be guns in society.
> 
> The UK's murder might be the same, or even slightly higher than it was in the 1950s. But that doesn't tell me much at all.
> 
> BBC - Mark Easton's UK: The history of homicide
> 
> "For England, the risk of homicide falls from 1.7 (in the 1840s) to 0.7 (mid-20th Century) and back up again as we approach the present day."
> 
> So, the murder rate fell into the modern era, and then has had fluctuations, most recently due to a surge in gun violence that has been tackled and the stats have dropped, the reports in the media have dropped, the crimes have dropped.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Homicide Rate (per 100,000),     1950–2014
> 
> Then again the US murder rate isn't much different.
> 
> In 1950 the US murder rate was 4.6, today it's like 3.9. That's a slight fall. US murder rates were more or less steady until the mid 1960s, then rose to a high in 1980 of 10.2 and then began to drop with the 1990s and new entertainment being more available.
> 
> What you're trying to claim isn't so. Most countries have seen a similar pattern, but we're still having the US with guns with a higher murder rate in the 1950s and the 1980s and the 2010s. Both saw a doubling in murder rates, both saw a drop. There's only one constant in the whole affair. GUNS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> guns don't cause murder
> 
> there are more guns in this country than ever before and the murder rate continues to drop
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, that's all you've got in response to my post.
> 
> Guns, in the hands of criminals, cause more murders than when criminals don't have guns. Like I said in my post, in all first world countries, murder rates have halved in the last 20-30 years. So, suggesting that because murder rates are dropping in the US means guns aren't a problem is just simply ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're not the problem
> Our piss poor record of keeping criminals incarcerated is the problem
> 
> Any crime committed while in possession of a gun should receive an automatic 25 year sentence with no parole
> Any murder committed with a gun should receive life in prison no parole
> 
> Let's see what that does to our gun crime rate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, if you look at other countries, you see the US has the HIGHEST incarceration rate, possibly in the world, definitely in the First World. Yet other countries manage to have less people incarcerated, less murders, and less guns. So your logic doesn't fit the reality.
> 
> Most people with guns don't seem to think they're going to get caught. The US has been introducing new rules on sentencing with guns in crime, and yet the crime rates have dropped at the same levels as every other first world country.
Click to expand...


Don't confuse incarceration rate with length of sentences or actual time served.

The fact is that less than half of all incarcerations were for violent crimes the rest were for nonviolent crimes like drug offenses, property crimes and others like public disorder

Just because a person might have been incarcerated does not mean they spend much time in jail in fact violent offenders on average get 5 year sentences but are often out on probation in less than 4 years
Criminal Sentencing Statistics

So we revamp sentencing for nonviolent and property crimes and concentrate on incarcerating violent criminals especially those who commit a crime while in possession of a firearm.

Like I said for any crime less than murder 10 - 25 year minimum sentence no parole
Murder or grievous injury with a gun automatic life in prison no parole

If we concentrate on violent offenders and come up with alternate sentencing for nonviolent crimes not only will our incarceration rate decrease but the most dangerous assholes would be off the streets for a long time


----------



## Yarddog

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Nowhere in the history, text, or case law of the Second Amendment will one find any reference to the Second Amendment 'trumping' the First Amendment, or authorizing the Second Amendment to abridge the First Amendment right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances through either the political process or the judicial process.
> 
> That a minority of citizens might subjectively and in error perceive government to have become 'tyrannical' in no manner 'justifies' that minority to 'take up arms' against a government lawfully sanctioned by a majority of the people, where government is indeed functioning in accordance with the Constitution and its case law.
> 
> There must first be consensus and agreement among the people through the political and democratic process as to what constitutes actual 'tyranny,' and that, consistent with that consensus, the government is in fact 'tyrannical' - then and only then might 'taking up arms' be warranted and lawful.






People don't need to take up arms against the government. They simply need to own them and they will never have that problem.  I think that was what the founders had in mind. Noah Webster had it right.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Yarddog said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nowhere in the history, text, or case law of the Second Amendment will one find any reference to the Second Amendment 'trumping' the First Amendment, or authorizing the Second Amendment to abridge the First Amendment right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances through either the political process or the judicial process.
> 
> That a minority of citizens might subjectively and in error perceive government to have become 'tyrannical' in no manner 'justifies' that minority to 'take up arms' against a government lawfully sanctioned by a majority of the people, where government is indeed functioning in accordance with the Constitution and its case law.
> 
> There must first be consensus and agreement among the people through the political and democratic process as to what constitutes actual 'tyranny,' and that, consistent with that consensus, the government is in fact 'tyrannical' - then and only then might 'taking up arms' be warranted and lawful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People don't need to take up arms against the government. They simply need to own them and they will never have that problem.  I think that was what the founders had in mind. Noah Webster had it right.
Click to expand...

So did Sam Colt


----------



## frigidweirdo

Skull Pilot said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The norm is this:
> 
> List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia
> 
> The UK murder rate 0.9
> France 1.2
> Germany 0.9
> Austria 0.5
> Belgium 1.8
> Luxembourg 0.8
> Netherlands 0.7
> Switzerland 0.5
> Australia 1.0
> New Zealand 0.9
> Italy 0.8
> Spain 0.7
> Japan 0.3
> South Korea 0.7
> Canada 1.4
> 
> Here is NORMAL for FIRST WORLD countries
> 
> The USA 3.9
> 
> Yeah, the US's murder rate is 2.1 higher than the next highest, and Belgium's rate was probably high for one year due to some unexpected attack or other, rather than a normal yearly rate. The US's rate is consistently higher than every other first world country, and by a long way. I mean, it's more than double Belgium's rate for this particular year, and is 4 times higher than most.
> 
> Yes, the US's murder rate is declining. FYI the murder rates of most countries are declining too. Why? Probably due to modern entertainment. Since the 1990s murder rates have been going down across the board. That doesn't stop the US having a disproportional murder rate, and the difference appears to be guns in society.
> 
> The UK's murder might be the same, or even slightly higher than it was in the 1950s. But that doesn't tell me much at all.
> 
> BBC - Mark Easton's UK: The history of homicide
> 
> "For England, the risk of homicide falls from 1.7 (in the 1840s) to 0.7 (mid-20th Century) and back up again as we approach the present day."
> 
> So, the murder rate fell into the modern era, and then has had fluctuations, most recently due to a surge in gun violence that has been tackled and the stats have dropped, the reports in the media have dropped, the crimes have dropped.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Homicide Rate (per 100,000),     1950–2014
> 
> Then again the US murder rate isn't much different.
> 
> In 1950 the US murder rate was 4.6, today it's like 3.9. That's a slight fall. US murder rates were more or less steady until the mid 1960s, then rose to a high in 1980 of 10.2 and then began to drop with the 1990s and new entertainment being more available.
> 
> What you're trying to claim isn't so. Most countries have seen a similar pattern, but we're still having the US with guns with a higher murder rate in the 1950s and the 1980s and the 2010s. Both saw a doubling in murder rates, both saw a drop. There's only one constant in the whole affair. GUNS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guns don't cause murder
> 
> there are more guns in this country than ever before and the murder rate continues to drop
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, that's all you've got in response to my post.
> 
> Guns, in the hands of criminals, cause more murders than when criminals don't have guns. Like I said in my post, in all first world countries, murder rates have halved in the last 20-30 years. So, suggesting that because murder rates are dropping in the US means guns aren't a problem is just simply ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're not the problem
> Our piss poor record of keeping criminals incarcerated is the problem
> 
> Any crime committed while in possession of a gun should receive an automatic 25 year sentence with no parole
> Any murder committed with a gun should receive life in prison no parole
> 
> Let's see what that does to our gun crime rate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, if you look at other countries, you see the US has the HIGHEST incarceration rate, possibly in the world, definitely in the First World. Yet other countries manage to have less people incarcerated, less murders, and less guns. So your logic doesn't fit the reality.
> 
> Most people with guns don't seem to think they're going to get caught. The US has been introducing new rules on sentencing with guns in crime, and yet the crime rates have dropped at the same levels as every other first world country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't confuse incarceration rate with length of sentences or actual time served.
> 
> The fact is that less than half of all incarcerations were for violent crimes the rest were for nonviolent crimes like drug offenses, property crimes and others like public disorder
> 
> Just because a person might have been incarcerated does not mean they spend much time in jail in fact violent offenders on average get 5 year sentences but are often out on probation in less than 4 years
> Criminal Sentencing Statistics
> 
> So we revamp sentencing for nonviolent and property crimes and concentrate on incarcerating violent criminals especially those who commit a crime while in possession of a firearm.
> 
> Like I said for any crime less than murder 10 - 25 year minimum sentence no parole
> Murder or grievous injury with a gun automatic life in prison no parole
> 
> If we concentrate on violent offenders and come up with alternate sentencing for nonviolent crimes not only will our incarceration rate decrease but the most dangerous assholes would be off the streets for a long time
Click to expand...


I'm not. However if you put people away for longer, you'll have larger prison populations, won't you? Either way, the US is putting too many people away or putting them away for too long. There are some people who get put away for too long, others maybe not long enough, what remains a constant is that crime is a problem in the US, and nothing is being done to solve these problems, not the problems involving guns, and not the problems around other issues like education, family etc. Always the same rhetoric comes out that means nothing will ever get done.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Skull Pilot said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is, indeed, what the racists used to teach us during the civil rights struggle in the South, but that damned traitor, JFK, nationalized the national guard  and crushed our freedom to lynch negros and kill Yankee civil rights workers. They also did the same thing at all the riots in 1967-1970. Didn't seem fair that they used tanks, and the freedom loving patriots only had rifles and handguns:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still doing it now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They go after those they feel they can go after, and the Native Americans are seen as weak.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are proving my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And how is that?
> 
> Because with guns, these guys stand no fucking chance anyway against the US armed forces? You could give them the weaponry of a country like, oh, I don't know, let's say IRAQ, and they'd still get their asses kicked, wouldn't they?
> 
> So what is your point then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The idea that random gun owners could somehow hold off a modern Army is an NRA fantasy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and funny how no one I know in the NRA says anything about taking on the government
> 
> I hate to burst your bubble but the vast majority of gun owners don't have fantasies of going to war with the US government
Click to expand...


Maybe not, but there are enough out there especially among the Nazis, white supremacists and crackpots out there. But people talk about using guns to save themselves from the US govt, but then don't use their vote effectively to save themselves from the US govt. How ironic.


----------



## Skull Pilot

frigidweirdo said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> guns don't cause murder
> 
> there are more guns in this country than ever before and the murder rate continues to drop
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, that's all you've got in response to my post.
> 
> Guns, in the hands of criminals, cause more murders than when criminals don't have guns. Like I said in my post, in all first world countries, murder rates have halved in the last 20-30 years. So, suggesting that because murder rates are dropping in the US means guns aren't a problem is just simply ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're not the problem
> Our piss poor record of keeping criminals incarcerated is the problem
> 
> Any crime committed while in possession of a gun should receive an automatic 25 year sentence with no parole
> Any murder committed with a gun should receive life in prison no parole
> 
> Let's see what that does to our gun crime rate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, if you look at other countries, you see the US has the HIGHEST incarceration rate, possibly in the world, definitely in the First World. Yet other countries manage to have less people incarcerated, less murders, and less guns. So your logic doesn't fit the reality.
> 
> Most people with guns don't seem to think they're going to get caught. The US has been introducing new rules on sentencing with guns in crime, and yet the crime rates have dropped at the same levels as every other first world country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't confuse incarceration rate with length of sentences or actual time served.
> 
> The fact is that less than half of all incarcerations were for violent crimes the rest were for nonviolent crimes like drug offenses, property crimes and others like public disorder
> 
> Just because a person might have been incarcerated does not mean they spend much time in jail in fact violent offenders on average get 5 year sentences but are often out on probation in less than 4 years
> Criminal Sentencing Statistics
> 
> So we revamp sentencing for nonviolent and property crimes and concentrate on incarcerating violent criminals especially those who commit a crime while in possession of a firearm.
> 
> Like I said for any crime less than murder 10 - 25 year minimum sentence no parole
> Murder or grievous injury with a gun automatic life in prison no parole
> 
> If we concentrate on violent offenders and come up with alternate sentencing for nonviolent crimes not only will our incarceration rate decrease but the most dangerous assholes would be off the streets for a long time
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not. However if you put people away for longer, you'll have larger prison populations, won't you? Either way, the US is putting too many people away or putting them away for too long. There are some people who get put away for too long, others maybe not long enough, what remains a constant is that crime is a problem in the US, and nothing is being done to solve these problems, not the problems involving guns, and not the problems around other issues like education, family etc. Always the same rhetoric comes out that means nothing will ever get done.
Click to expand...


Do you even read what I post

Did you miss this part

_If we concentrate on violent offenders and come up with alternate sentencing for nonviolent crimes not only will our incarceration rate decrease but the most dangerous assholes would be off the streets for a long time
_
Violent offenders in 2012 made up less than half of the prison population and yet on average were out on probation in less than 4 years


----------



## Skull Pilot

frigidweirdo said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still doing it now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They go after those they feel they can go after, and the Native Americans are seen as weak.
> 
> 
> 
> You are proving my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And how is that?
> 
> Because with guns, these guys stand no fucking chance anyway against the US armed forces? You could give them the weaponry of a country like, oh, I don't know, let's say IRAQ, and they'd still get their asses kicked, wouldn't they?
> 
> So what is your point then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The idea that random gun owners could somehow hold off a modern Army is an NRA fantasy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and funny how no one I know in the NRA says anything about taking on the government
> 
> I hate to burst your bubble but the vast majority of gun owners don't have fantasies of going to war with the US government
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe not, but there are enough out there especially among the Nazis, white supremacists and crackpots out there. But people talk about using guns to save themselves from the US govt, but then don't use their vote effectively to save themselves from the US govt. How ironic.
Click to expand...


yeah a fraction of a percent is enough right?


----------



## xyz

ding said:


> The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.
> 
> "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> "_f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
> 
> - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.
> 
> "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"
> 
> Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"
> 
> The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.
> 
> "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
> 
> "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
> 
> "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it._


I do not disagree with what you are saying, but be aware that a militia can also overthrow a democratic government and put a dictatorship in its place.


----------



## rightwinger

Skull Pilot said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The norm is this:
> 
> List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia
> 
> The UK murder rate 0.9
> France 1.2
> Germany 0.9
> Austria 0.5
> Belgium 1.8
> Luxembourg 0.8
> Netherlands 0.7
> Switzerland 0.5
> Australia 1.0
> New Zealand 0.9
> Italy 0.8
> Spain 0.7
> Japan 0.3
> South Korea 0.7
> Canada 1.4
> 
> Here is NORMAL for FIRST WORLD countries
> 
> The USA 3.9
> 
> Yeah, the US's murder rate is 2.1 higher than the next highest, and Belgium's rate was probably high for one year due to some unexpected attack or other, rather than a normal yearly rate. The US's rate is consistently higher than every other first world country, and by a long way. I mean, it's more than double Belgium's rate for this particular year, and is 4 times higher than most.
> 
> Yes, the US's murder rate is declining. FYI the murder rates of most countries are declining too. Why? Probably due to modern entertainment. Since the 1990s murder rates have been going down across the board. That doesn't stop the US having a disproportional murder rate, and the difference appears to be guns in society.
> 
> The UK's murder might be the same, or even slightly higher than it was in the 1950s. But that doesn't tell me much at all.
> 
> BBC - Mark Easton's UK: The history of homicide
> 
> "For England, the risk of homicide falls from 1.7 (in the 1840s) to 0.7 (mid-20th Century) and back up again as we approach the present day."
> 
> So, the murder rate fell into the modern era, and then has had fluctuations, most recently due to a surge in gun violence that has been tackled and the stats have dropped, the reports in the media have dropped, the crimes have dropped.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Homicide Rate (per 100,000),     1950–2014
> 
> Then again the US murder rate isn't much different.
> 
> In 1950 the US murder rate was 4.6, today it's like 3.9. That's a slight fall. US murder rates were more or less steady until the mid 1960s, then rose to a high in 1980 of 10.2 and then began to drop with the 1990s and new entertainment being more available.
> 
> What you're trying to claim isn't so. Most countries have seen a similar pattern, but we're still having the US with guns with a higher murder rate in the 1950s and the 1980s and the 2010s. Both saw a doubling in murder rates, both saw a drop. There's only one constant in the whole affair. GUNS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guns don't cause murder
> 
> there are more guns in this country than ever before and the murder rate continues to drop
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, that's all you've got in response to my post.
> 
> Guns, in the hands of criminals, cause more murders than when criminals don't have guns. Like I said in my post, in all first world countries, murder rates have halved in the last 20-30 years. So, suggesting that because murder rates are dropping in the US means guns aren't a problem is just simply ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're not the problem
> Our piss poor record of keeping criminals incarcerated is the problem
> 
> Any crime committed while in possession of a gun should receive an automatic 25 year sentence with no parole
> Any murder committed with a gun should receive life in prison no parole
> 
> Let's see what that does to our gun crime rate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, if you look at other countries, you see the US has the HIGHEST incarceration rate, possibly in the world, definitely in the First World. Yet other countries manage to have less people incarcerated, less murders, and less guns. So your logic doesn't fit the reality.
> 
> Most people with guns don't seem to think they're going to get caught. The US has been introducing new rules on sentencing with guns in crime, and yet the crime rates have dropped at the same levels as every other first world country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't confuse incarceration rate with length of sentences or actual time served.
> 
> The fact is that less than half of all incarcerations were for violent crimes the rest were for nonviolent crimes like drug offenses, property crimes and others like public disorder
> 
> Just because a person might have been incarcerated does not mean they spend much time in jail in fact violent offenders on average get 5 year sentences but are often out on probation in less than 4 years
> Criminal Sentencing Statistics
> 
> So we revamp sentencing for nonviolent and property crimes and concentrate on incarcerating violent criminals especially those who commit a crime while in possession of a firearm.
> 
> Like I said for any crime less than murder 10 - 25 year minimum sentence no parole
> Murder or grievous injury with a gun automatic life in prison no parole
> 
> If we concentrate on violent offenders and come up with alternate sentencing for nonviolent crimes not only will our incarceration rate decrease but the most dangerous assholes would be off the streets for a long time
Click to expand...


Regardless ....2.5 million is still 2.5 million

We have no problem finding replacements when someone is released. One reason we let them out early is we have a long line of convicts waiting to get in

Is it because we have more criminals or just petty zero tolerance laws that keep our prisons filled to overflowing?


----------



## Skull Pilot

rightwinger said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> guns don't cause murder
> 
> there are more guns in this country than ever before and the murder rate continues to drop
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, that's all you've got in response to my post.
> 
> Guns, in the hands of criminals, cause more murders than when criminals don't have guns. Like I said in my post, in all first world countries, murder rates have halved in the last 20-30 years. So, suggesting that because murder rates are dropping in the US means guns aren't a problem is just simply ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're not the problem
> Our piss poor record of keeping criminals incarcerated is the problem
> 
> Any crime committed while in possession of a gun should receive an automatic 25 year sentence with no parole
> Any murder committed with a gun should receive life in prison no parole
> 
> Let's see what that does to our gun crime rate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, if you look at other countries, you see the US has the HIGHEST incarceration rate, possibly in the world, definitely in the First World. Yet other countries manage to have less people incarcerated, less murders, and less guns. So your logic doesn't fit the reality.
> 
> Most people with guns don't seem to think they're going to get caught. The US has been introducing new rules on sentencing with guns in crime, and yet the crime rates have dropped at the same levels as every other first world country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't confuse incarceration rate with length of sentences or actual time served.
> 
> The fact is that less than half of all incarcerations were for violent crimes the rest were for nonviolent crimes like drug offenses, property crimes and others like public disorder
> 
> Just because a person might have been incarcerated does not mean they spend much time in jail in fact violent offenders on average get 5 year sentences but are often out on probation in less than 4 years
> Criminal Sentencing Statistics
> 
> So we revamp sentencing for nonviolent and property crimes and concentrate on incarcerating violent criminals especially those who commit a crime while in possession of a firearm.
> 
> Like I said for any crime less than murder 10 - 25 year minimum sentence no parole
> Murder or grievous injury with a gun automatic life in prison no parole
> 
> If we concentrate on violent offenders and come up with alternate sentencing for nonviolent crimes not only will our incarceration rate decrease but the most dangerous assholes would be off the streets for a long time
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Regardless ....2.5 million is still 2.5 million
> 
> We have no problem finding replacements when someone is released. One reason we let them out early is we have a long line of convicts waiting to get in
> 
> Is it because we have more criminals or just petty zero tolerance laws that keep our prisons filled to overflowing?
Click to expand...


It's OK if you want to be obtuse

And if you are going to respond at least read what I wrote

In case you couldn't comprehend what i said I'll rephrase

We need to stop incarcerating people for petty non violent offenses by using some alternate sentencing and concentrate on violent offenders

since less than half of all inmates are in jail for violent offenses if we stop jailing people for petty and nonviolent crimes and minor drug possessions we will be able to reduce our prison population considerably while still keeping the most dangerous people locked up and away from the public for a long time

The average prison sentence for violent offenders is 5 years but the average actual prison stay is less than 4 years.

Do you really want violent offenders to be given such short sentences?


----------



## rightwinger

Yarddog said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nowhere in the history, text, or case law of the Second Amendment will one find any reference to the Second Amendment 'trumping' the First Amendment, or authorizing the Second Amendment to abridge the First Amendment right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances through either the political process or the judicial process.
> 
> That a minority of citizens might subjectively and in error perceive government to have become 'tyrannical' in no manner 'justifies' that minority to 'take up arms' against a government lawfully sanctioned by a majority of the people, where government is indeed functioning in accordance with the Constitution and its case law.
> 
> There must first be consensus and agreement among the people through the political and democratic process as to what constitutes actual 'tyranny,' and that, consistent with that consensus, the government is in fact 'tyrannical' - then and only then might 'taking up arms' be warranted and lawful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People don't need to take up arms against the government. They simply need to own them and they will never have that problem.  I think that was what the founders had in mind. Noah Webster had it right.
Click to expand...


Our founders gave citizens much more powerful weapons to be used against government

Freedom of Speech
Freedom of the Press
A right to vote


----------



## rightwinger

Skull Pilot said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, that's all you've got in response to my post.
> 
> Guns, in the hands of criminals, cause more murders than when criminals don't have guns. Like I said in my post, in all first world countries, murder rates have halved in the last 20-30 years. So, suggesting that because murder rates are dropping in the US means guns aren't a problem is just simply ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're not the problem
> Our piss poor record of keeping criminals incarcerated is the problem
> 
> Any crime committed while in possession of a gun should receive an automatic 25 year sentence with no parole
> Any murder committed with a gun should receive life in prison no parole
> 
> Let's see what that does to our gun crime rate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, if you look at other countries, you see the US has the HIGHEST incarceration rate, possibly in the world, definitely in the First World. Yet other countries manage to have less people incarcerated, less murders, and less guns. So your logic doesn't fit the reality.
> 
> Most people with guns don't seem to think they're going to get caught. The US has been introducing new rules on sentencing with guns in crime, and yet the crime rates have dropped at the same levels as every other first world country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't confuse incarceration rate with length of sentences or actual time served.
> 
> The fact is that less than half of all incarcerations were for violent crimes the rest were for nonviolent crimes like drug offenses, property crimes and others like public disorder
> 
> Just because a person might have been incarcerated does not mean they spend much time in jail in fact violent offenders on average get 5 year sentences but are often out on probation in less than 4 years
> Criminal Sentencing Statistics
> 
> So we revamp sentencing for nonviolent and property crimes and concentrate on incarcerating violent criminals especially those who commit a crime while in possession of a firearm.
> 
> Like I said for any crime less than murder 10 - 25 year minimum sentence no parole
> Murder or grievous injury with a gun automatic life in prison no parole
> 
> If we concentrate on violent offenders and come up with alternate sentencing for nonviolent crimes not only will our incarceration rate decrease but the most dangerous assholes would be off the streets for a long time
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Regardless ....2.5 million is still 2.5 million
> 
> We have no problem finding replacements when someone is released. One reason we let them out early is we have a long line of convicts waiting to get in
> 
> Is it because we have more criminals or just petty zero tolerance laws that keep our prisons filled to overflowing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's OK if you want to be obtuse
> 
> And if you are going to respond at least read what I wrote
> 
> In case you couldn't comprehend what i said I'll rephrase
> 
> We need to stop incarcerating people for petty non violent offenses by using some alternate sentencing and concentrate on violent offenders
> 
> since less than half of all inmates are in jail for violent offenses if we stop jailing people for petty and nonviolent crimes and minor drug possessions we will be able to reduce our prison population considerably while still keeping the most dangerous people locked up and away from the public for a long time
> 
> The average prison sentence for violent offenders is 5 years but the average actual prison stay is less than 4 years.
> 
> Do you really want violent offenders to be given such short sentences?
Click to expand...


Depends

Are we talking assault or rape and murder?


----------



## Skull Pilot

rightwinger said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> They're not the problem
> Our piss poor record of keeping criminals incarcerated is the problem
> 
> Any crime committed while in possession of a gun should receive an automatic 25 year sentence with no parole
> Any murder committed with a gun should receive life in prison no parole
> 
> Let's see what that does to our gun crime rate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, if you look at other countries, you see the US has the HIGHEST incarceration rate, possibly in the world, definitely in the First World. Yet other countries manage to have less people incarcerated, less murders, and less guns. So your logic doesn't fit the reality.
> 
> Most people with guns don't seem to think they're going to get caught. The US has been introducing new rules on sentencing with guns in crime, and yet the crime rates have dropped at the same levels as every other first world country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't confuse incarceration rate with length of sentences or actual time served.
> 
> The fact is that less than half of all incarcerations were for violent crimes the rest were for nonviolent crimes like drug offenses, property crimes and others like public disorder
> 
> Just because a person might have been incarcerated does not mean they spend much time in jail in fact violent offenders on average get 5 year sentences but are often out on probation in less than 4 years
> Criminal Sentencing Statistics
> 
> So we revamp sentencing for nonviolent and property crimes and concentrate on incarcerating violent criminals especially those who commit a crime while in possession of a firearm.
> 
> Like I said for any crime less than murder 10 - 25 year minimum sentence no parole
> Murder or grievous injury with a gun automatic life in prison no parole
> 
> If we concentrate on violent offenders and come up with alternate sentencing for nonviolent crimes not only will our incarceration rate decrease but the most dangerous assholes would be off the streets for a long time
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Regardless ....2.5 million is still 2.5 million
> 
> We have no problem finding replacements when someone is released. One reason we let them out early is we have a long line of convicts waiting to get in
> 
> Is it because we have more criminals or just petty zero tolerance laws that keep our prisons filled to overflowing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's OK if you want to be obtuse
> 
> And if you are going to respond at least read what I wrote
> 
> In case you couldn't comprehend what i said I'll rephrase
> 
> We need to stop incarcerating people for petty non violent offenses by using some alternate sentencing and concentrate on violent offenders
> 
> since less than half of all inmates are in jail for violent offenses if we stop jailing people for petty and nonviolent crimes and minor drug possessions we will be able to reduce our prison population considerably while still keeping the most dangerous people locked up and away from the public for a long time
> 
> The average prison sentence for violent offenders is 5 years but the average actual prison stay is less than 4 years.
> 
> Do you really want violent offenders to be given such short sentences?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Depends
> 
> Are we talking assault or rape and murder?
Click to expand...


It depends on the assault since technically just touching a person can be assault.

But since this is a thread about guns why don't we limit our discussion to that particular subject

If you want gun violence to be reduced then people who commit crimes while in the possession of a firearm have to be removed from society for a long time

So gun charges need to be primary charges and not pleaded down or dropped

All crimes committed while in possession of  firearm need to be given felony status

All prison sentences for crimes committed with guns must be at least 10 years with no parole

Let's stop worrying about petty and nonviolent crimes and come up with some sort of alternate sentencing so we can concentrate on keeping violent people off the street and away from the public


----------



## ding

rightwinger said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> No people do not need to be disarmed. Their ability to form an effective fighting force is limited. An army is more than a "bunch of guys with guns" It takes training, tactics, communications, command and control plus the all important logistics
> Most importantly it takes a willingness to die for your cause.....something our gun nuts lack
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Founding Fathers disagree with you, amigo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> History has proven the Founding Fathers wrong
> 
> Even in the Revolutionary War where local militias were actually used, they were found to be minimally effective. It was not the local minuteman that won the war.......It was the Continental Army and the French Navy
> 
> The Founders disdained the idea of a standing Army....once again, history proved them wrong. Lack of a standing Army almost cost us the country in 1812. We also suffered for it during WWI and WWII
> 
> Armies are not a bunch of guys with guns running around and shooting at stuff.
Click to expand...

I don't believe history has proven the Founding Fathers wrong that a well armed populace is the best protection of freedom and liberty.  I believe you making fringe arguments that don't go to the heart of addressing what the Founding Fathers knew and history has proven.

1911 – Turkey disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1915 – 1917 they murdered 1.5 million Armenians.

1929 – Russia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1929 – 1953 they murdered 20 million Russians.

1935 – China disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1948 – 1952 they murdered 20 million Chinese.

1938 – Germany disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1939 – 1945 they murdered 16 million Jews.

1956 – Cambodia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1975 – 1977 they murdered 1 million Educated people.

1964 – Guatemala disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1964 – 1981 they murdered 100,000 Mayan Indians.

1970 – Uganda disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1971 – 1979 they murdered 300,000 Christians.

Death by "Gun Control"


----------



## ding

frigidweirdo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Blacks committed 4 times the per capita murders with guns than the national average.  If blacks had just committed murders at the rate of the national average, our gun death rate would have dropped from 2.67 murders per 100,000 persons to 1.76 murders per 100,000 persons.
> 
> So when liberals talk about taking guns away, that is code for taking guns away from blacks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then again blacks are far more likely to be in poverty too. White people in poverty are more likely to use guns in crime, as are black people. But then it's easy to just take one statistic and float it around without looking at the whole situation, isn't it?
Click to expand...

My goodness.  One statistic.   You need to go back and review the FBI's data, bro.  It's that way across all of the violent crime types and has been that way ever since the FBI started compiling the data.  The bottom line is that American's are not violent.  Certain segments of America is, and since you are using our total statistics to inform your opinion, your opinion is being skewed by the segment which is skewing the data.  Like I said, rather than worrying about guns, you just might to want to deal with the real root cause of the problem.    

Blaming poverty is an excuse.


----------



## ding

frigidweirdo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are they? They are to a certain extent, but then again the Brits, the western Europeans, the Canadians, the Australians etc have the same freedom and yet have LESS gun violence and don't have tyrannical govts (well, not any more tyrannical than the US's, in some regardless less tyrannical).
> 
> List of freedom indices - Wikipedia
> 
> You can see the middle one, Australia is free but the US is "mostly free".
> 
> Hmm, and yet less gun violence.
> 
> Yes, I'm concerned with inner city violence, it happens in the UK, France and the US, but the rates in the US are higher across the board. In fact the US only have one city above 250,000 people with a murder rate that is lower than the UK's murder rate. ONE CITY.
> 
> But it appears you're trying to pass off the fact that the US has a high rate of murder, and you're unwilling to see that the only difference is guns.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, bruv, gun violence and gun accidents are the price of freedom and liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is, indeed, what the racists used to teach us during the civil rights struggle in the South, but that damned traitor, JFK, nationalized the national guard  and crushed our freedom to lynch negros and kill Yankee civil rights workers. They also did the same thing at all the riots in 1967-1970. Didn't seem fair that they used tanks, and the freedom loving patriots only had rifles and handguns:
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still doing it now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They go after those they feel they can go after, and the Native Americans are seen as weak.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are proving my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And how is that?
> 
> Because with guns, these guys stand no fucking chance anyway against the US armed forces? You could give them the weaponry of a country like, oh, I don't know, let's say IRAQ, and they'd still get their asses kicked, wouldn't they?
> 
> So what is your point then?
Click to expand...

I have explained this to you no less than three times.  How dense are you?  An armed populace is a deterrent against a government from usurping its authority.


----------



## ding

xyz said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.
> 
> "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> "_f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
> 
> - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.
> 
> "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"
> 
> Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"
> 
> The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.
> 
> "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
> 
> "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
> 
> "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it._
> 
> 
> 
> I do not disagree with what you are saying, but be aware that a militia can also overthrow a democratic government and put a dictatorship in its place.
Click to expand...

Sure, that too is possible, but our Founding Fathers were aware of that risk and we still have the 2nd Amendment, right?


----------



## rightwinger

ding said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> No people do not need to be disarmed. Their ability to form an effective fighting force is limited. An army is more than a "bunch of guys with guns" It takes training, tactics, communications, command and control plus the all important logistics
> Most importantly it takes a willingness to die for your cause.....something our gun nuts lack
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Founding Fathers disagree with you, amigo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> History has proven the Founding Fathers wrong
> 
> Even in the Revolutionary War where local militias were actually used, they were found to be minimally effective. It was not the local minuteman that won the war.......It was the Continental Army and the French Navy
> 
> The Founders disdained the idea of a standing Army....once again, history proved them wrong. Lack of a standing Army almost cost us the country in 1812. We also suffered for it during WWI and WWII
> 
> Armies are not a bunch of guys with guns running around and shooting at stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't believe history has proven the Founding Fathers wrong that a well armed populace is the best protection of freedom and liberty.  I believe you making fringe arguments that don't go to the heart of addressing what the Founding Fathers knew and history has proven.
> 
> 1911 – Turkey disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1915 – 1917 they murdered 1.5 million Armenians.
> 
> 1929 – Russia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1929 – 1953 they murdered 20 million Russians.
> 
> 1935 – China disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1948 – 1952 they murdered 20 million Chinese.
> 
> 1938 – Germany disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1939 – 1945 they murdered 16 million Jews.
> 
> 1956 – Cambodia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1975 – 1977 they murdered 1 million Educated people.
> 
> 1964 – Guatemala disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1964 – 1981 they murdered 100,000 Mayan Indians.
> 
> 1970 – Uganda disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1971 – 1979 they murdered 300,000 Christians.
> 
> Death by "Gun Control"
Click to expand...


Nice try but proves nothing

None of your examples prove that if the population had been armed they would have overwhelmed the government forces. In fact, it would have led to greater slaughter

Most importantly, none of them had a free press, freedom of speech or a vote that would have prevented the despotic rulers to come into power

If you have a strong first amendment, you have no need for a second


----------



## ding

rightwinger said:


> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nowhere in the history, text, or case law of the Second Amendment will one find any reference to the Second Amendment 'trumping' the First Amendment, or authorizing the Second Amendment to abridge the First Amendment right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances through either the political process or the judicial process.
> 
> That a minority of citizens might subjectively and in error perceive government to have become 'tyrannical' in no manner 'justifies' that minority to 'take up arms' against a government lawfully sanctioned by a majority of the people, where government is indeed functioning in accordance with the Constitution and its case law.
> 
> There must first be consensus and agreement among the people through the political and democratic process as to what constitutes actual 'tyranny,' and that, consistent with that consensus, the government is in fact 'tyrannical' - then and only then might 'taking up arms' be warranted and lawful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People don't need to take up arms against the government. They simply need to own them and they will never have that problem.  I think that was what the founders had in mind. Noah Webster had it right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our founders gave citizens much more powerful weapons to be used against government
> 
> Freedom of Speech
> Freedom of the Press
> A right to vote
Click to expand...

And one last resort... the right to bear arms.  Man were those guys smart.


----------



## ding

rightwinger said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> No people do not need to be disarmed. Their ability to form an effective fighting force is limited. An army is more than a "bunch of guys with guns" It takes training, tactics, communications, command and control plus the all important logistics
> Most importantly it takes a willingness to die for your cause.....something our gun nuts lack
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Founding Fathers disagree with you, amigo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> History has proven the Founding Fathers wrong
> 
> Even in the Revolutionary War where local militias were actually used, they were found to be minimally effective. It was not the local minuteman that won the war.......It was the Continental Army and the French Navy
> 
> The Founders disdained the idea of a standing Army....once again, history proved them wrong. Lack of a standing Army almost cost us the country in 1812. We also suffered for it during WWI and WWII
> 
> Armies are not a bunch of guys with guns running around and shooting at stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't believe history has proven the Founding Fathers wrong that a well armed populace is the best protection of freedom and liberty.  I believe you making fringe arguments that don't go to the heart of addressing what the Founding Fathers knew and history has proven.
> 
> 1911 – Turkey disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1915 – 1917 they murdered 1.5 million Armenians.
> 
> 1929 – Russia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1929 – 1953 they murdered 20 million Russians.
> 
> 1935 – China disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1948 – 1952 they murdered 20 million Chinese.
> 
> 1938 – Germany disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1939 – 1945 they murdered 16 million Jews.
> 
> 1956 – Cambodia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1975 – 1977 they murdered 1 million Educated people.
> 
> 1964 – Guatemala disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1964 – 1981 they murdered 100,000 Mayan Indians.
> 
> 1970 – Uganda disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1971 – 1979 they murdered 300,000 Christians.
> 
> Death by "Gun Control"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice try but proves nothing
> 
> None of your examples prove that if the population had been armed they would have overwhelmed the government forces. In fact, it would have led to greater slaughter
> 
> Most importantly, none of them had a free press, freedom of speech or a vote that would have prevented the despotic rulers to come into power
> 
> If you have a strong first amendment, you have no need for a second
Click to expand...

It proves everything as those are all examples of nations which disarmed their people.  Your fringe arguments proved nothing.


----------



## ding




----------



## Yarddog

rightwinger said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> No people do not need to be disarmed. Their ability to form an effective fighting force is limited. An army is more than a "bunch of guys with guns" It takes training, tactics, communications, command and control plus the all important logistics
> Most importantly it takes a willingness to die for your cause.....something our gun nuts lack
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Founding Fathers disagree with you, amigo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> History has proven the Founding Fathers wrong
> 
> Even in the Revolutionary War where local militias were actually used, they were found to be minimally effective. It was not the local minuteman that won the war.......It was the Continental Army and the French Navy
> 
> The Founders disdained the idea of a standing Army....once again, history proved them wrong. Lack of a standing Army almost cost us the country in 1812. We also suffered for it during WWI and WWII
> 
> Armies are not a bunch of guys with guns running around and shooting at stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't believe history has proven the Founding Fathers wrong that a well armed populace is the best protection of freedom and liberty.  I believe you making fringe arguments that don't go to the heart of addressing what the Founding Fathers knew and history has proven.
> 
> 1911 – Turkey disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1915 – 1917 they murdered 1.5 million Armenians.
> 
> 1929 – Russia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1929 – 1953 they murdered 20 million Russians.
> 
> 1935 – China disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1948 – 1952 they murdered 20 million Chinese.
> 
> 1938 – Germany disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1939 – 1945 they murdered 16 million Jews.
> 
> 1956 – Cambodia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1975 – 1977 they murdered 1 million Educated people.
> 
> 1964 – Guatemala disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1964 – 1981 they murdered 100,000 Mayan Indians.
> 
> 1970 – Uganda disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1971 – 1979 they murdered 300,000 Christians.
> 
> Death by "Gun Control"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice try but proves nothing
> 
> None of your examples prove that if the population had been armed they would have overwhelmed the government forces. In fact, it would have led to greater slaughter
> 
> Most importantly, none of them had a free press, freedom of speech or a vote that would have prevented the despotic rulers to come into power
> 
> If you have a strong first amendment, you have no need for a second
Click to expand...



Really? you cant be serious.   If you are correct that there is no proof armed populations would have protected themselves from slaughter and genocide,  than why is it that all of those cases occurred after the populations were disarmed?  Why didnt those things happen while the populations were still armed?  It had to be after and the proof is pretty self evident unless you happen to be an attorney, then you might work some way around it


----------



## rightwinger

ding said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> No people do not need to be disarmed. Their ability to form an effective fighting force is limited. An army is more than a "bunch of guys with guns" It takes training, tactics, communications, command and control plus the all important logistics
> Most importantly it takes a willingness to die for your cause.....something our gun nuts lack
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Founding Fathers disagree with you, amigo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> History has proven the Founding Fathers wrong
> 
> Even in the Revolutionary War where local militias were actually used, they were found to be minimally effective. It was not the local minuteman that won the war.......It was the Continental Army and the French Navy
> 
> The Founders disdained the idea of a standing Army....once again, history proved them wrong. Lack of a standing Army almost cost us the country in 1812. We also suffered for it during WWI and WWII
> 
> Armies are not a bunch of guys with guns running around and shooting at stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't believe history has proven the Founding Fathers wrong that a well armed populace is the best protection of freedom and liberty.  I believe you making fringe arguments that don't go to the heart of addressing what the Founding Fathers knew and history has proven.
> 
> 1911 – Turkey disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1915 – 1917 they murdered 1.5 million Armenians.
> 
> 1929 – Russia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1929 – 1953 they murdered 20 million Russians.
> 
> 1935 – China disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1948 – 1952 they murdered 20 million Chinese.
> 
> 1938 – Germany disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1939 – 1945 they murdered 16 million Jews.
> 
> 1956 – Cambodia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1975 – 1977 they murdered 1 million Educated people.
> 
> 1964 – Guatemala disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1964 – 1981 they murdered 100,000 Mayan Indians.
> 
> 1970 – Uganda disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1971 – 1979 they murdered 300,000 Christians.
> 
> Death by "Gun Control"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice try but proves nothing
> 
> None of your examples prove that if the population had been armed they would have overwhelmed the government forces. In fact, it would have led to greater slaughter
> 
> Most importantly, none of them had a free press, freedom of speech or a vote that would have prevented the despotic rulers to come into power
> 
> If you have a strong first amendment, you have no need for a second
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It proves everything as those are all examples of nations which disarmed their people.  Your fringe arguments proved nothing.
Click to expand...


Again, you make the assumption that an armed population would have stopped them

Lets look at the Nazis

They faced an armed population in many of the nations the conquered...France, Norway, Netherlands, Belgium

In no cases were an armed community able to hold off the German Army. Those individuals who tried met with swift retribution with not only themselves, but their families and in some cases entire towns wiped out in retaliation of civilians killing German soldiers


----------



## rightwinger

Yarddog said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> No people do not need to be disarmed. Their ability to form an effective fighting force is limited. An army is more than a "bunch of guys with guns" It takes training, tactics, communications, command and control plus the all important logistics
> Most importantly it takes a willingness to die for your cause.....something our gun nuts lack
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Founding Fathers disagree with you, amigo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> History has proven the Founding Fathers wrong
> 
> Even in the Revolutionary War where local militias were actually used, they were found to be minimally effective. It was not the local minuteman that won the war.......It was the Continental Army and the French Navy
> 
> The Founders disdained the idea of a standing Army....once again, history proved them wrong. Lack of a standing Army almost cost us the country in 1812. We also suffered for it during WWI and WWII
> 
> Armies are not a bunch of guys with guns running around and shooting at stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't believe history has proven the Founding Fathers wrong that a well armed populace is the best protection of freedom and liberty.  I believe you making fringe arguments that don't go to the heart of addressing what the Founding Fathers knew and history has proven.
> 
> 1911 – Turkey disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1915 – 1917 they murdered 1.5 million Armenians.
> 
> 1929 – Russia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1929 – 1953 they murdered 20 million Russians.
> 
> 1935 – China disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1948 – 1952 they murdered 20 million Chinese.
> 
> 1938 – Germany disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1939 – 1945 they murdered 16 million Jews.
> 
> 1956 – Cambodia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1975 – 1977 they murdered 1 million Educated people.
> 
> 1964 – Guatemala disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1964 – 1981 they murdered 100,000 Mayan Indians.
> 
> 1970 – Uganda disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1971 – 1979 they murdered 300,000 Christians.
> 
> Death by "Gun Control"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice try but proves nothing
> 
> None of your examples prove that if the population had been armed they would have overwhelmed the government forces. In fact, it would have led to greater slaughter
> 
> Most importantly, none of them had a free press, freedom of speech or a vote that would have prevented the despotic rulers to come into power
> 
> If you have a strong first amendment, you have no need for a second
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Really? you cant be serious.   If you are correct that there is no proof armed populations would have protected themselves from slaughter and genocide,  than why is it that all of those cases occurred after the populations were disarmed?  Why didnt those things happen while the populations were still armed?  It had to be after and the proof is pretty self evident unless you happen to be an attorney, then you might work some way around it
Click to expand...


Shirley you cannot provide any examples of an armed civilian population holding off a modern invading Army


----------



## ding

rightwinger said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Founding Fathers disagree with you, amigo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> History has proven the Founding Fathers wrong
> 
> Even in the Revolutionary War where local militias were actually used, they were found to be minimally effective. It was not the local minuteman that won the war.......It was the Continental Army and the French Navy
> 
> The Founders disdained the idea of a standing Army....once again, history proved them wrong. Lack of a standing Army almost cost us the country in 1812. We also suffered for it during WWI and WWII
> 
> Armies are not a bunch of guys with guns running around and shooting at stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't believe history has proven the Founding Fathers wrong that a well armed populace is the best protection of freedom and liberty.  I believe you making fringe arguments that don't go to the heart of addressing what the Founding Fathers knew and history has proven.
> 
> 1911 – Turkey disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1915 – 1917 they murdered 1.5 million Armenians.
> 
> 1929 – Russia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1929 – 1953 they murdered 20 million Russians.
> 
> 1935 – China disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1948 – 1952 they murdered 20 million Chinese.
> 
> 1938 – Germany disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1939 – 1945 they murdered 16 million Jews.
> 
> 1956 – Cambodia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1975 – 1977 they murdered 1 million Educated people.
> 
> 1964 – Guatemala disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1964 – 1981 they murdered 100,000 Mayan Indians.
> 
> 1970 – Uganda disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1971 – 1979 they murdered 300,000 Christians.
> 
> Death by "Gun Control"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice try but proves nothing
> 
> None of your examples prove that if the population had been armed they would have overwhelmed the government forces. In fact, it would have led to greater slaughter
> 
> Most importantly, none of them had a free press, freedom of speech or a vote that would have prevented the despotic rulers to come into power
> 
> If you have a strong first amendment, you have no need for a second
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It proves everything as those are all examples of nations which disarmed their people.  Your fringe arguments proved nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you make the assumption that an armed population would have stopped them
> 
> Lets look at the Nazis
> 
> They faced an armed population in many of the nations the conquered...France, Norway, Netherlands, Belgium
> 
> In no cases were an armed community able to hold off the German Army. Those individuals who tried met with swift retribution with not only themselves, but their families and in some cases entire towns wiped out in retaliation of civilians killing German soldiers
Click to expand...

I like our chance better with guns rather than out guns.  This is true for both preventing the rise of a tyrannical government and dealing with one if it does arise.  

But regardless of your argument, all that really matters is that this is what our Founding Fathers believed and this is the basis for the 2nd Amendment.


----------



## ding

rightwinger said:


> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Founding Fathers disagree with you, amigo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> History has proven the Founding Fathers wrong
> 
> Even in the Revolutionary War where local militias were actually used, they were found to be minimally effective. It was not the local minuteman that won the war.......It was the Continental Army and the French Navy
> 
> The Founders disdained the idea of a standing Army....once again, history proved them wrong. Lack of a standing Army almost cost us the country in 1812. We also suffered for it during WWI and WWII
> 
> Armies are not a bunch of guys with guns running around and shooting at stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't believe history has proven the Founding Fathers wrong that a well armed populace is the best protection of freedom and liberty.  I believe you making fringe arguments that don't go to the heart of addressing what the Founding Fathers knew and history has proven.
> 
> 1911 – Turkey disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1915 – 1917 they murdered 1.5 million Armenians.
> 
> 1929 – Russia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1929 – 1953 they murdered 20 million Russians.
> 
> 1935 – China disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1948 – 1952 they murdered 20 million Chinese.
> 
> 1938 – Germany disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1939 – 1945 they murdered 16 million Jews.
> 
> 1956 – Cambodia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1975 – 1977 they murdered 1 million Educated people.
> 
> 1964 – Guatemala disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1964 – 1981 they murdered 100,000 Mayan Indians.
> 
> 1970 – Uganda disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1971 – 1979 they murdered 300,000 Christians.
> 
> Death by "Gun Control"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice try but proves nothing
> 
> None of your examples prove that if the population had been armed they would have overwhelmed the government forces. In fact, it would have led to greater slaughter
> 
> Most importantly, none of them had a free press, freedom of speech or a vote that would have prevented the despotic rulers to come into power
> 
> If you have a strong first amendment, you have no need for a second
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Really? you cant be serious.   If you are correct that there is no proof armed populations would have protected themselves from slaughter and genocide,  than why is it that all of those cases occurred after the populations were disarmed?  Why didnt those things happen while the populations were still armed?  It had to be after and the proof is pretty self evident unless you happen to be an attorney, then you might work some way around it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shirley you cannot provide any examples of an armed civilian population holding off a modern invading Army
Click to expand...

Don't need to.   This is what our Founding Fathers believed and this is the basis for the 2nd Amendment.  Deal with it.


----------



## rightwinger

ding said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> History has proven the Founding Fathers wrong
> 
> Even in the Revolutionary War where local militias were actually used, they were found to be minimally effective. It was not the local minuteman that won the war.......It was the Continental Army and the French Navy
> 
> The Founders disdained the idea of a standing Army....once again, history proved them wrong. Lack of a standing Army almost cost us the country in 1812. We also suffered for it during WWI and WWII
> 
> Armies are not a bunch of guys with guns running around and shooting at stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe history has proven the Founding Fathers wrong that a well armed populace is the best protection of freedom and liberty.  I believe you making fringe arguments that don't go to the heart of addressing what the Founding Fathers knew and history has proven.
> 
> 1911 – Turkey disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1915 – 1917 they murdered 1.5 million Armenians.
> 
> 1929 – Russia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1929 – 1953 they murdered 20 million Russians.
> 
> 1935 – China disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1948 – 1952 they murdered 20 million Chinese.
> 
> 1938 – Germany disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1939 – 1945 they murdered 16 million Jews.
> 
> 1956 – Cambodia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1975 – 1977 they murdered 1 million Educated people.
> 
> 1964 – Guatemala disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1964 – 1981 they murdered 100,000 Mayan Indians.
> 
> 1970 – Uganda disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1971 – 1979 they murdered 300,000 Christians.
> 
> Death by "Gun Control"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice try but proves nothing
> 
> None of your examples prove that if the population had been armed they would have overwhelmed the government forces. In fact, it would have led to greater slaughter
> 
> Most importantly, none of them had a free press, freedom of speech or a vote that would have prevented the despotic rulers to come into power
> 
> If you have a strong first amendment, you have no need for a second
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It proves everything as those are all examples of nations which disarmed their people.  Your fringe arguments proved nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you make the assumption that an armed population would have stopped them
> 
> Lets look at the Nazis
> 
> They faced an armed population in many of the nations the conquered...France, Norway, Netherlands, Belgium
> 
> In no cases were an armed community able to hold off the German Army. Those individuals who tried met with swift retribution with not only themselves, but their families and in some cases entire towns wiped out in retaliation of civilians killing German soldiers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I like our chance better with guns rather than out guns.  This is true for both preventing the rise of a tyrannical government and dealing with one if it does arise.
> 
> But regardless of your argument, all that really matters is that this is what our Founding Fathers believed and this is the basis for the 2nd Amendment.
Click to expand...


Communities that tried to fight the Nazis through sniper fire or vigilante type attacks met with swift retribution as not only the perpetrators but random members of the town selected for execution

They did nothing to stop the Nazis and would do nothing against a modern  army


----------



## ding

rightwinger said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe history has proven the Founding Fathers wrong that a well armed populace is the best protection of freedom and liberty.  I believe you making fringe arguments that don't go to the heart of addressing what the Founding Fathers knew and history has proven.
> 
> 1911 – Turkey disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1915 – 1917 they murdered 1.5 million Armenians.
> 
> 1929 – Russia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1929 – 1953 they murdered 20 million Russians.
> 
> 1935 – China disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1948 – 1952 they murdered 20 million Chinese.
> 
> 1938 – Germany disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1939 – 1945 they murdered 16 million Jews.
> 
> 1956 – Cambodia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1975 – 1977 they murdered 1 million Educated people.
> 
> 1964 – Guatemala disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1964 – 1981 they murdered 100,000 Mayan Indians.
> 
> 1970 – Uganda disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1971 – 1979 they murdered 300,000 Christians.
> 
> Death by "Gun Control"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try but proves nothing
> 
> None of your examples prove that if the population had been armed they would have overwhelmed the government forces. In fact, it would have led to greater slaughter
> 
> Most importantly, none of them had a free press, freedom of speech or a vote that would have prevented the despotic rulers to come into power
> 
> If you have a strong first amendment, you have no need for a second
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It proves everything as those are all examples of nations which disarmed their people.  Your fringe arguments proved nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you make the assumption that an armed population would have stopped them
> 
> Lets look at the Nazis
> 
> They faced an armed population in many of the nations the conquered...France, Norway, Netherlands, Belgium
> 
> In no cases were an armed community able to hold off the German Army. Those individuals who tried met with swift retribution with not only themselves, but their families and in some cases entire towns wiped out in retaliation of civilians killing German soldiers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I like our chance better with guns rather than out guns.  This is true for both preventing the rise of a tyrannical government and dealing with one if it does arise.
> 
> But regardless of your argument, all that really matters is that this is what our Founding Fathers believed and this is the basis for the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Communities that tried to fight the Nazis through sniper fire or vigilante type attacks met with swift retribution as not only the perpetrators but random members of the town selected for execution
> 
> They did nothing to stop the Nazis and would do nothing against a modern  army
Click to expand...

Sure.  After the country had been disarmed.


----------



## rightwinger

ding said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> History has proven the Founding Fathers wrong
> 
> Even in the Revolutionary War where local militias were actually used, they were found to be minimally effective. It was not the local minuteman that won the war.......It was the Continental Army and the French Navy
> 
> The Founders disdained the idea of a standing Army....once again, history proved them wrong. Lack of a standing Army almost cost us the country in 1812. We also suffered for it during WWI and WWII
> 
> Armies are not a bunch of guys with guns running around and shooting at stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe history has proven the Founding Fathers wrong that a well armed populace is the best protection of freedom and liberty.  I believe you making fringe arguments that don't go to the heart of addressing what the Founding Fathers knew and history has proven.
> 
> 1911 – Turkey disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1915 – 1917 they murdered 1.5 million Armenians.
> 
> 1929 – Russia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1929 – 1953 they murdered 20 million Russians.
> 
> 1935 – China disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1948 – 1952 they murdered 20 million Chinese.
> 
> 1938 – Germany disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1939 – 1945 they murdered 16 million Jews.
> 
> 1956 – Cambodia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1975 – 1977 they murdered 1 million Educated people.
> 
> 1964 – Guatemala disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1964 – 1981 they murdered 100,000 Mayan Indians.
> 
> 1970 – Uganda disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1971 – 1979 they murdered 300,000 Christians.
> 
> Death by "Gun Control"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice try but proves nothing
> 
> None of your examples prove that if the population had been armed they would have overwhelmed the government forces. In fact, it would have led to greater slaughter
> 
> Most importantly, none of them had a free press, freedom of speech or a vote that would have prevented the despotic rulers to come into power
> 
> If you have a strong first amendment, you have no need for a second
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Really? you cant be serious.   If you are correct that there is no proof armed populations would have protected themselves from slaughter and genocide,  than why is it that all of those cases occurred after the populations were disarmed?  Why didnt those things happen while the populations were still armed?  It had to be after and the proof is pretty self evident unless you happen to be an attorney, then you might work some way around it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shirley you cannot provide any examples of an armed civilian population holding off a modern invading Army
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't need to.   This is what our Founding Fathers believed and this is the basis for the 2nd Amendment.  Deal with it.
Click to expand...


Founding Fathers were wrong

An armed population is not needed for the security of a free state....it takes standing armies to do that


----------



## rightwinger

ding said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try but proves nothing
> 
> None of your examples prove that if the population had been armed they would have overwhelmed the government forces. In fact, it would have led to greater slaughter
> 
> Most importantly, none of them had a free press, freedom of speech or a vote that would have prevented the despotic rulers to come into power
> 
> If you have a strong first amendment, you have no need for a second
> 
> 
> 
> It proves everything as those are all examples of nations which disarmed their people.  Your fringe arguments proved nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you make the assumption that an armed population would have stopped them
> 
> Lets look at the Nazis
> 
> They faced an armed population in many of the nations the conquered...France, Norway, Netherlands, Belgium
> 
> In no cases were an armed community able to hold off the German Army. Those individuals who tried met with swift retribution with not only themselves, but their families and in some cases entire towns wiped out in retaliation of civilians killing German soldiers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I like our chance better with guns rather than out guns.  This is true for both preventing the rise of a tyrannical government and dealing with one if it does arise.
> 
> But regardless of your argument, all that really matters is that this is what our Founding Fathers believed and this is the basis for the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Communities that tried to fight the Nazis through sniper fire or vigilante type attacks met with swift retribution as not only the perpetrators but random members of the town selected for execution
> 
> They did nothing to stop the Nazis and would do nothing against a modern  army
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure.  After the country had been disarmed.
Click to expand...


France was not disarmed.
Neither was Norway, Belgium or the Netherlands


----------



## ding

rightwinger said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe history has proven the Founding Fathers wrong that a well armed populace is the best protection of freedom and liberty.  I believe you making fringe arguments that don't go to the heart of addressing what the Founding Fathers knew and history has proven.
> 
> 1911 – Turkey disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1915 – 1917 they murdered 1.5 million Armenians.
> 
> 1929 – Russia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1929 – 1953 they murdered 20 million Russians.
> 
> 1935 – China disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1948 – 1952 they murdered 20 million Chinese.
> 
> 1938 – Germany disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1939 – 1945 they murdered 16 million Jews.
> 
> 1956 – Cambodia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1975 – 1977 they murdered 1 million Educated people.
> 
> 1964 – Guatemala disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1964 – 1981 they murdered 100,000 Mayan Indians.
> 
> 1970 – Uganda disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1971 – 1979 they murdered 300,000 Christians.
> 
> Death by "Gun Control"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try but proves nothing
> 
> None of your examples prove that if the population had been armed they would have overwhelmed the government forces. In fact, it would have led to greater slaughter
> 
> Most importantly, none of them had a free press, freedom of speech or a vote that would have prevented the despotic rulers to come into power
> 
> If you have a strong first amendment, you have no need for a second
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Really? you cant be serious.   If you are correct that there is no proof armed populations would have protected themselves from slaughter and genocide,  than why is it that all of those cases occurred after the populations were disarmed?  Why didnt those things happen while the populations were still armed?  It had to be after and the proof is pretty self evident unless you happen to be an attorney, then you might work some way around it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shirley you cannot provide any examples of an armed civilian population holding off a modern invading Army
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't need to.   This is what our Founding Fathers believed and this is the basis for the 2nd Amendment.  Deal with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Founding Fathers were wrong
> 
> An armed population is not needed for the security of a free state....it takes standing armies to do that
Click to expand...

You are free to disagree with the Founding Fathers, comrade, but not free to change the Constitution.  I have already provided the proof that they were correct.  They had their own proof back in their day.


----------



## ding

rightwinger said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> It proves everything as those are all examples of nations which disarmed their people.  Your fringe arguments proved nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you make the assumption that an armed population would have stopped them
> 
> Lets look at the Nazis
> 
> They faced an armed population in many of the nations the conquered...France, Norway, Netherlands, Belgium
> 
> In no cases were an armed community able to hold off the German Army. Those individuals who tried met with swift retribution with not only themselves, but their families and in some cases entire towns wiped out in retaliation of civilians killing German soldiers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I like our chance better with guns rather than out guns.  This is true for both preventing the rise of a tyrannical government and dealing with one if it does arise.
> 
> But regardless of your argument, all that really matters is that this is what our Founding Fathers believed and this is the basis for the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Communities that tried to fight the Nazis through sniper fire or vigilante type attacks met with swift retribution as not only the perpetrators but random members of the town selected for execution
> 
> They did nothing to stop the Nazis and would do nothing against a modern  army
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure.  After the country had been disarmed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> France was not disarmed.
> Neither was Norway, Belgium or the Netherlands
Click to expand...

Given enough time, power corrupts.  Our 2nd Amendment is our last check against tyranny.  They have none.


----------



## Yarddog

rightwinger said:


> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Founding Fathers disagree with you, amigo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> History has proven the Founding Fathers wrong
> 
> Even in the Revolutionary War where local militias were actually used, they were found to be minimally effective. It was not the local minuteman that won the war.......It was the Continental Army and the French Navy
> 
> The Founders disdained the idea of a standing Army....once again, history proved them wrong. Lack of a standing Army almost cost us the country in 1812. We also suffered for it during WWI and WWII
> 
> Armies are not a bunch of guys with guns running around and shooting at stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't believe history has proven the Founding Fathers wrong that a well armed populace is the best protection of freedom and liberty.  I believe you making fringe arguments that don't go to the heart of addressing what the Founding Fathers knew and history has proven.
> 
> 1911 – Turkey disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1915 – 1917 they murdered 1.5 million Armenians.
> 
> 1929 – Russia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1929 – 1953 they murdered 20 million Russians.
> 
> 1935 – China disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1948 – 1952 they murdered 20 million Chinese.
> 
> 1938 – Germany disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1939 – 1945 they murdered 16 million Jews.
> 
> 1956 – Cambodia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1975 – 1977 they murdered 1 million Educated people.
> 
> 1964 – Guatemala disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1964 – 1981 they murdered 100,000 Mayan Indians.
> 
> 1970 – Uganda disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1971 – 1979 they murdered 300,000 Christians.
> 
> Death by "Gun Control"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice try but proves nothing
> 
> None of your examples prove that if the population had been armed they would have overwhelmed the government forces. In fact, it would have led to greater slaughter
> 
> Most importantly, none of them had a free press, freedom of speech or a vote that would have prevented the despotic rulers to come into power
> 
> If you have a strong first amendment, you have no need for a second
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Really? you cant be serious.   If you are correct that there is no proof armed populations would have protected themselves from slaughter and genocide,  than why is it that all of those cases occurred after the populations were disarmed?  Why didnt those things happen while the populations were still armed?  It had to be after and the proof is pretty self evident unless you happen to be an attorney, then you might work some way around it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shirley you cannot provide any examples of an armed civilian population holding off a modern invading Army
Click to expand...


QUOTE:
"None of your examples prove that if the population had been armed they would have overwhelmed the government forces. In fact, it would have led to greater slaughter"

Then look at the numbers of civilians killed in Ding's post again.  Show an example then, of an armed population resisting a tyranical government where the number of civilians slaughtered, eclipses the ones provided. You said the slaughter would be much more,  but that is only conjecture.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Yarddog said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> No people do not need to be disarmed. Their ability to form an effective fighting force is limited. An army is more than a "bunch of guys with guns" It takes training, tactics, communications, command and control plus the all important logistics
> Most importantly it takes a willingness to die for your cause.....something our gun nuts lack
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Founding Fathers disagree with you, amigo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> History has proven the Founding Fathers wrong
> 
> Even in the Revolutionary War where local militias were actually used, they were found to be minimally effective. It was not the local minuteman that won the war.......It was the Continental Army and the French Navy
> 
> The Founders disdained the idea of a standing Army....once again, history proved them wrong. Lack of a standing Army almost cost us the country in 1812. We also suffered for it during WWI and WWII
> 
> Armies are not a bunch of guys with guns running around and shooting at stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't believe history has proven the Founding Fathers wrong that a well armed populace is the best protection of freedom and liberty.  I believe you making fringe arguments that don't go to the heart of addressing what the Founding Fathers knew and history has proven.
> 
> 1911 – Turkey disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1915 – 1917 they murdered 1.5 million Armenians.
> 
> 1929 – Russia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1929 – 1953 they murdered 20 million Russians.
> 
> 1935 – China disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1948 – 1952 they murdered 20 million Chinese.
> 
> 1938 – Germany disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1939 – 1945 they murdered 16 million Jews.
> 
> 1956 – Cambodia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1975 – 1977 they murdered 1 million Educated people.
> 
> 1964 – Guatemala disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1964 – 1981 they murdered 100,000 Mayan Indians.
> 
> 1970 – Uganda disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1971 – 1979 they murdered 300,000 Christians.
> 
> Death by "Gun Control"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice try but proves nothing
> 
> None of your examples prove that if the population had been armed they would have overwhelmed the government forces. In fact, it would have led to greater slaughter
> 
> Most importantly, none of them had a free press, freedom of speech or a vote that would have prevented the despotic rulers to come into power
> 
> If you have a strong first amendment, you have no need for a second
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Really? you cant be serious.   If you are correct that there is no proof armed populations would have protected themselves from slaughter and genocide,  than why is it that all of those cases occurred after the populations were disarmed?  Why didnt those things happen while the populations were still armed?  It had to be after and the proof is pretty self evident unless you happen to be an attorney, then you might work some way around it
Click to expand...


I'm sure that the Armenian peasants and shepherds had a lot of guns confiscated. Maybe 10 or 11, anyway.


----------



## ding

Vandalshandle said:


> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Founding Fathers disagree with you, amigo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> History has proven the Founding Fathers wrong
> 
> Even in the Revolutionary War where local militias were actually used, they were found to be minimally effective. It was not the local minuteman that won the war.......It was the Continental Army and the French Navy
> 
> The Founders disdained the idea of a standing Army....once again, history proved them wrong. Lack of a standing Army almost cost us the country in 1812. We also suffered for it during WWI and WWII
> 
> Armies are not a bunch of guys with guns running around and shooting at stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't believe history has proven the Founding Fathers wrong that a well armed populace is the best protection of freedom and liberty.  I believe you making fringe arguments that don't go to the heart of addressing what the Founding Fathers knew and history has proven.
> 
> 1911 – Turkey disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1915 – 1917 they murdered 1.5 million Armenians.
> 
> 1929 – Russia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1929 – 1953 they murdered 20 million Russians.
> 
> 1935 – China disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1948 – 1952 they murdered 20 million Chinese.
> 
> 1938 – Germany disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1939 – 1945 they murdered 16 million Jews.
> 
> 1956 – Cambodia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1975 – 1977 they murdered 1 million Educated people.
> 
> 1964 – Guatemala disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1964 – 1981 they murdered 100,000 Mayan Indians.
> 
> 1970 – Uganda disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1971 – 1979 they murdered 300,000 Christians.
> 
> Death by "Gun Control"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice try but proves nothing
> 
> None of your examples prove that if the population had been armed they would have overwhelmed the government forces. In fact, it would have led to greater slaughter
> 
> Most importantly, none of them had a free press, freedom of speech or a vote that would have prevented the despotic rulers to come into power
> 
> If you have a strong first amendment, you have no need for a second
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Really? you cant be serious.   If you are correct that there is no proof armed populations would have protected themselves from slaughter and genocide,  than why is it that all of those cases occurred after the populations were disarmed?  Why didnt those things happen while the populations were still armed?  It had to be after and the proof is pretty self evident unless you happen to be an attorney, then you might work some way around it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure that the Armenian peasants and shepherds had a lot of guns confiscated. Maybe 10 or 11, anyway.
Click to expand...

You know this how?  Let me ask you this, if you are right in your belief, why would they have needed to ban guns in the first place?


----------



## Yarddog

Vandalshandle said:


> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Founding Fathers disagree with you, amigo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> History has proven the Founding Fathers wrong
> 
> Even in the Revolutionary War where local militias were actually used, they were found to be minimally effective. It was not the local minuteman that won the war.......It was the Continental Army and the French Navy
> 
> The Founders disdained the idea of a standing Army....once again, history proved them wrong. Lack of a standing Army almost cost us the country in 1812. We also suffered for it during WWI and WWII
> 
> Armies are not a bunch of guys with guns running around and shooting at stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't believe history has proven the Founding Fathers wrong that a well armed populace is the best protection of freedom and liberty.  I believe you making fringe arguments that don't go to the heart of addressing what the Founding Fathers knew and history has proven.
> 
> 1911 – Turkey disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1915 – 1917 they murdered 1.5 million Armenians.
> 
> 1929 – Russia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1929 – 1953 they murdered 20 million Russians.
> 
> 1935 – China disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1948 – 1952 they murdered 20 million Chinese.
> 
> 1938 – Germany disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1939 – 1945 they murdered 16 million Jews.
> 
> 1956 – Cambodia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1975 – 1977 they murdered 1 million Educated people.
> 
> 1964 – Guatemala disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1964 – 1981 they murdered 100,000 Mayan Indians.
> 
> 1970 – Uganda disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1971 – 1979 they murdered 300,000 Christians.
> 
> Death by "Gun Control"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice try but proves nothing
> 
> None of your examples prove that if the population had been armed they would have overwhelmed the government forces. In fact, it would have led to greater slaughter
> 
> Most importantly, none of them had a free press, freedom of speech or a vote that would have prevented the despotic rulers to come into power
> 
> If you have a strong first amendment, you have no need for a second
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Really? you cant be serious.   If you are correct that there is no proof armed populations would have protected themselves from slaughter and genocide,  than why is it that all of those cases occurred after the populations were disarmed?  Why didnt those things happen while the populations were still armed?  It had to be after and the proof is pretty self evident unless you happen to be an attorney, then you might work some way around it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure that the Armenian peasants and shepherds had a lot of guns confiscated. Maybe 10 or 11, anyway.
Click to expand...



*11 How was the genocide implemented?*

Once the core and the leadership of a possible resistance was gone, it was time to remove the working Armenian male population, the one who could rise up in resistance during a future phase. All Armenian men aged 20-45 years (August 1914) and later men between 18-20 and 45-60 had been drafted to serve in the Ottoman Army. Only females and males under 18 and over 60 were left.[4]In early 1915, the Armenian soldiers were disarmed and placed in labor battalions where they were severely abused. In February 1915, the Turkish Government ordered these labor battalions to be liquidated, and by July 1915 approximately 200,000 Armenian soldiers had been murdered.[5]It was only after the Armenian community had been paralyzed by removing the leaders and the men that the main phase of the extermination project by mass deportations and massacres of the helpless civilian population commenced. The Armenian population now consisted mainly of women, children and men over the age of 60.[6]Women were raped or abducted or sold in slave markets to Turkish and Kurdish harems. Many women and girls committed suicide by jumping off cliffs and into rivers to escape this fate. Women, children and old people were gathered in the town churches which then were set on fire. As soon as the caravans of the deportees arrived outside the city and out of sight, they were attacked the Kurdish bands. With the support of Turkish soldiers they massacred the Armenians and looted them on both property and even clothing. Those who survived the massacre died of starvation and diseases during the long marches towards the Syrian and the Mesopotamian deserts. Assyrians/Syrians met the same fate, while the massacres of Pontic Greeks were mainly carried out during the years 1921-1923, i.e. during the period when Mustafa Kemal took power in the country and finished what the Turkish rulers had started during World War I.

As you can see,  the bulk of Armenian men who would have defended the population were eliminated or disarmed,
and your insinuation is really just a myth I'm afraid to say. Check out the link.

Arms possession saved many Armenians from genocide


----------



## rightwinger

ding said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try but proves nothing
> 
> None of your examples prove that if the population had been armed they would have overwhelmed the government forces. In fact, it would have led to greater slaughter
> 
> Most importantly, none of them had a free press, freedom of speech or a vote that would have prevented the despotic rulers to come into power
> 
> If you have a strong first amendment, you have no need for a second
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? you cant be serious.   If you are correct that there is no proof armed populations would have protected themselves from slaughter and genocide,  than why is it that all of those cases occurred after the populations were disarmed?  Why didnt those things happen while the populations were still armed?  It had to be after and the proof is pretty self evident unless you happen to be an attorney, then you might work some way around it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shirley you cannot provide any examples of an armed civilian population holding off a modern invading Army
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't need to.   This is what our Founding Fathers believed and this is the basis for the 2nd Amendment.  Deal with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Founding Fathers were wrong
> 
> An armed population is not needed for the security of a free state....it takes standing armies to do that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are free to disagree with the Founding Fathers, comrade, but not free to change the Constitution.  I have already provided the proof that they were correct.  They had their own proof back in their day.
Click to expand...


Even if you look at the "proof" during their own day, they drew the wrong conclusion

While there is a romantic vision of the Minutemen during the Revolutionary War, Militias were not effective in fighting regular British troops. They were best known for running away. It was not until the Continental Army was trained into a fighting force that we started to make progress. It was the entrance of the French with their experience and navy that finally won the war.

After the war our nation was bankrupt. We thought we could get away without having a standing army......our founders were wrong


----------



## rightwinger

ding said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you make the assumption that an armed population would have stopped them
> 
> Lets look at the Nazis
> 
> They faced an armed population in many of the nations the conquered...France, Norway, Netherlands, Belgium
> 
> In no cases were an armed community able to hold off the German Army. Those individuals who tried met with swift retribution with not only themselves, but their families and in some cases entire towns wiped out in retaliation of civilians killing German soldiers
> 
> 
> 
> I like our chance better with guns rather than out guns.  This is true for both preventing the rise of a tyrannical government and dealing with one if it does arise.
> 
> But regardless of your argument, all that really matters is that this is what our Founding Fathers believed and this is the basis for the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Communities that tried to fight the Nazis through sniper fire or vigilante type attacks met with swift retribution as not only the perpetrators but random members of the town selected for execution
> 
> They did nothing to stop the Nazis and would do nothing against a modern  army
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure.  After the country had been disarmed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> France was not disarmed.
> Neither was Norway, Belgium or the Netherlands
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Given enough time, power corrupts.  Our 2nd Amendment is our last check against tyranny.  They have none.
Click to expand...

Hasn't corrupted in over 230 years

That is because we have a vote and a strong First Amendment....we have never needed the second


----------



## ding

rightwinger said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? you cant be serious.   If you are correct that there is no proof armed populations would have protected themselves from slaughter and genocide,  than why is it that all of those cases occurred after the populations were disarmed?  Why didnt those things happen while the populations were still armed?  It had to be after and the proof is pretty self evident unless you happen to be an attorney, then you might work some way around it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shirley you cannot provide any examples of an armed civilian population holding off a modern invading Army
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't need to.   This is what our Founding Fathers believed and this is the basis for the 2nd Amendment.  Deal with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Founding Fathers were wrong
> 
> An armed population is not needed for the security of a free state....it takes standing armies to do that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are free to disagree with the Founding Fathers, comrade, but not free to change the Constitution.  I have already provided the proof that they were correct.  They had their own proof back in their day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even if you look at the "proof" during their own day, they drew the wrong conclusion
> 
> While there is a romantic vision of the Minutemen during the Revolutionary War, Militias were not effective in fighting regular British troops. They were best known for running away. It was not until the Continental Army was trained into a fighting force that we started to make progress. It was the entrance of the French with their experience and navy that finally won the war.
> 
> After the war our nation was bankrupt. We thought we could get away without having a standing army......our founders were wrong
Click to expand...

They didn't draw their conclusion from fighting the British, you moron.  They drew it from the history of Europe.


----------



## ding

rightwinger said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like our chance better with guns rather than out guns.  This is true for both preventing the rise of a tyrannical government and dealing with one if it does arise.
> 
> But regardless of your argument, all that really matters is that this is what our Founding Fathers believed and this is the basis for the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Communities that tried to fight the Nazis through sniper fire or vigilante type attacks met with swift retribution as not only the perpetrators but random members of the town selected for execution
> 
> They did nothing to stop the Nazis and would do nothing against a modern  army
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure.  After the country had been disarmed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> France was not disarmed.
> Neither was Norway, Belgium or the Netherlands
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Given enough time, power corrupts.  Our 2nd Amendment is our last check against tyranny.  They have none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hasn't corrupted in over 230 years
> 
> That is because we have a vote and a strong First Amendment....we have never needed the second
Click to expand...

Keep telling yourself that comrade.  That is exactly the argument I would expect a subversive enemy agent to make.


----------



## rightwinger

ding said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shirley you cannot provide any examples of an armed civilian population holding off a modern invading Army
> 
> 
> 
> Don't need to.   This is what our Founding Fathers believed and this is the basis for the 2nd Amendment.  Deal with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Founding Fathers were wrong
> 
> An armed population is not needed for the security of a free state....it takes standing armies to do that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are free to disagree with the Founding Fathers, comrade, but not free to change the Constitution.  I have already provided the proof that they were correct.  They had their own proof back in their day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even if you look at the "proof" during their own day, they drew the wrong conclusion
> 
> While there is a romantic vision of the Minutemen during the Revolutionary War, Militias were not effective in fighting regular British troops. They were best known for running away. It was not until the Continental Army was trained into a fighting force that we started to make progress. It was the entrance of the French with their experience and navy that finally won the war.
> 
> After the war our nation was bankrupt. We thought we could get away without having a standing army......our founders were wrong
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They didn't draw their conclusion from fighting the British, you moron.  They drew it from the history of Europe.
Click to expand...


Oh...I just gotta see your link on that one


----------



## Skull Pilot

rightwinger said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> No people do not need to be disarmed. Their ability to form an effective fighting force is limited. An army is more than a "bunch of guys with guns" It takes training, tactics, communications, command and control plus the all important logistics
> Most importantly it takes a willingness to die for your cause.....something our gun nuts lack
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Founding Fathers disagree with you, amigo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> History has proven the Founding Fathers wrong
> 
> Even in the Revolutionary War where local militias were actually used, they were found to be minimally effective. It was not the local minuteman that won the war.......It was the Continental Army and the French Navy
> 
> The Founders disdained the idea of a standing Army....once again, history proved them wrong. Lack of a standing Army almost cost us the country in 1812. We also suffered for it during WWI and WWII
> 
> Armies are not a bunch of guys with guns running around and shooting at stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't believe history has proven the Founding Fathers wrong that a well armed populace is the best protection of freedom and liberty.  I believe you making fringe arguments that don't go to the heart of addressing what the Founding Fathers knew and history has proven.
> 
> 1911 – Turkey disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1915 – 1917 they murdered 1.5 million Armenians.
> 
> 1929 – Russia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1929 – 1953 they murdered 20 million Russians.
> 
> 1935 – China disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1948 – 1952 they murdered 20 million Chinese.
> 
> 1938 – Germany disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1939 – 1945 they murdered 16 million Jews.
> 
> 1956 – Cambodia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1975 – 1977 they murdered 1 million Educated people.
> 
> 1964 – Guatemala disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1964 – 1981 they murdered 100,000 Mayan Indians.
> 
> 1970 – Uganda disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1971 – 1979 they murdered 300,000 Christians.
> 
> Death by "Gun Control"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice try but proves nothing
> 
> None of your examples prove that if the population had been armed they would have overwhelmed the government forces. In fact, it would have led to greater slaughter
> 
> Most importantly, none of them had a free press, freedom of speech or a vote that would have prevented the despotic rulers to come into power
> 
> If you have a strong first amendment, you have no need for a second
Click to expand...


People should always have the right and the means to protect themselves because the fucking government sure as hell won't

THAT is the most important reason for allowing the citizenry to keep and bear arms


----------



## rightwinger

ding said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Communities that tried to fight the Nazis through sniper fire or vigilante type attacks met with swift retribution as not only the perpetrators but random members of the town selected for execution
> 
> They did nothing to stop the Nazis and would do nothing against a modern  army
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.  After the country had been disarmed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> France was not disarmed.
> Neither was Norway, Belgium or the Netherlands
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Given enough time, power corrupts.  Our 2nd Amendment is our last check against tyranny.  They have none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hasn't corrupted in over 230 years
> 
> That is because we have a vote and a strong First Amendment....we have never needed the second
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Keep telling yourself that comrade.  That is exactly the argument I would expect a subversive enemy agent to make.
Click to expand...


Comrade?

Do you realize how ridiculous that reply is on a post supporting the strength of freedom of speech, the press and voting?

Are you still in High School?


----------



## Skull Pilot

rightwinger said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.  After the country had been disarmed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> France was not disarmed.
> Neither was Norway, Belgium or the Netherlands
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Given enough time, power corrupts.  Our 2nd Amendment is our last check against tyranny.  They have none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hasn't corrupted in over 230 years
> 
> That is because we have a vote and a strong First Amendment....we have never needed the second
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Keep telling yourself that comrade.  That is exactly the argument I would expect a subversive enemy agent to make.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Comrade?
> 
> Do you realize how ridiculous that reply is on a post supporting the strength of freedom of speech, the press and voting?
> 
> Are you still in High School?
Click to expand...


You have too much faith in voters


----------



## rightwinger

Skull Pilot said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> History has proven the Founding Fathers wrong
> 
> Even in the Revolutionary War where local militias were actually used, they were found to be minimally effective. It was not the local minuteman that won the war.......It was the Continental Army and the French Navy
> 
> The Founders disdained the idea of a standing Army....once again, history proved them wrong. Lack of a standing Army almost cost us the country in 1812. We also suffered for it during WWI and WWII
> 
> Armies are not a bunch of guys with guns running around and shooting at stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe history has proven the Founding Fathers wrong that a well armed populace is the best protection of freedom and liberty.  I believe you making fringe arguments that don't go to the heart of addressing what the Founding Fathers knew and history has proven.
> 
> 1911 – Turkey disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1915 – 1917 they murdered 1.5 million Armenians.
> 
> 1929 – Russia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1929 – 1953 they murdered 20 million Russians.
> 
> 1935 – China disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1948 – 1952 they murdered 20 million Chinese.
> 
> 1938 – Germany disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1939 – 1945 they murdered 16 million Jews.
> 
> 1956 – Cambodia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1975 – 1977 they murdered 1 million Educated people.
> 
> 1964 – Guatemala disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1964 – 1981 they murdered 100,000 Mayan Indians.
> 
> 1970 – Uganda disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1971 – 1979 they murdered 300,000 Christians.
> 
> Death by "Gun Control"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice try but proves nothing
> 
> None of your examples prove that if the population had been armed they would have overwhelmed the government forces. In fact, it would have led to greater slaughter
> 
> Most importantly, none of them had a free press, freedom of speech or a vote that would have prevented the despotic rulers to come into power
> 
> If you have a strong first amendment, you have no need for a second
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It proves everything as those are all examples of nations which disarmed their people.  Your fringe arguments proved nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you make the assumption that an armed population would have stopped them
> 
> Lets look at the Nazis
> 
> They faced an armed population in many of the nations the conquered...France, Norway, Netherlands, Belgium
> 
> In no cases were an armed community able to hold off the German Army. Those individuals who tried met with swift retribution with not only themselves, but their families and in some cases entire towns wiped out in retaliation of civilians killing German soldiers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you do know that even though the French government rolled over and sucked Hitler's dick that there was a strong French resistance that played a significant part in WWII don't you?
Click to expand...


Very much so...there was a French Resistance

But they were saboteurs and provided intelligence to the allies. They were not involved in armed combat with German forces and they did not drive the Nazis out of France


----------



## rightwinger

Skull Pilot said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> France was not disarmed.
> Neither was Norway, Belgium or the Netherlands
> 
> 
> 
> Given enough time, power corrupts.  Our 2nd Amendment is our last check against tyranny.  They have none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hasn't corrupted in over 230 years
> 
> That is because we have a vote and a strong First Amendment....we have never needed the second
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Keep telling yourself that comrade.  That is exactly the argument I would expect a subversive enemy agent to make.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Comrade?
> 
> Do you realize how ridiculous that reply is on a post supporting the strength of freedom of speech, the press and voting?
> 
> Are you still in High School?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have too much faith in voters
Click to expand...


We will see on Tuesday, Comrade


----------



## Skull Pilot

rightwinger said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe history has proven the Founding Fathers wrong that a well armed populace is the best protection of freedom and liberty.  I believe you making fringe arguments that don't go to the heart of addressing what the Founding Fathers knew and history has proven.
> 
> 1911 – Turkey disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1915 – 1917 they murdered 1.5 million Armenians.
> 
> 1929 – Russia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1929 – 1953 they murdered 20 million Russians.
> 
> 1935 – China disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1948 – 1952 they murdered 20 million Chinese.
> 
> 1938 – Germany disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1939 – 1945 they murdered 16 million Jews.
> 
> 1956 – Cambodia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1975 – 1977 they murdered 1 million Educated people.
> 
> 1964 – Guatemala disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1964 – 1981 they murdered 100,000 Mayan Indians.
> 
> 1970 – Uganda disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1971 – 1979 they murdered 300,000 Christians.
> 
> Death by "Gun Control"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try but proves nothing
> 
> None of your examples prove that if the population had been armed they would have overwhelmed the government forces. In fact, it would have led to greater slaughter
> 
> Most importantly, none of them had a free press, freedom of speech or a vote that would have prevented the despotic rulers to come into power
> 
> If you have a strong first amendment, you have no need for a second
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It proves everything as those are all examples of nations which disarmed their people.  Your fringe arguments proved nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you make the assumption that an armed population would have stopped them
> 
> Lets look at the Nazis
> 
> They faced an armed population in many of the nations the conquered...France, Norway, Netherlands, Belgium
> 
> In no cases were an armed community able to hold off the German Army. Those individuals who tried met with swift retribution with not only themselves, but their families and in some cases entire towns wiped out in retaliation of civilians killing German soldiers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you do know that even though the French government rolled over and sucked Hitler's dick that there was a strong French resistance that played a significant part in WWII don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very much so...there was a French Resistance
> 
> But they were saboteurs and provided intelligence to the allies. They were not involved in armed combat with German forces and they did not drive the Nazis out of France
Click to expand...


What you don't understand is that a small force of armed resistance fighters does not have to overwhelm the larger governmental force they just have to make it too painful for that governemnt to keep doing what it's doing


----------



## ding

rightwinger said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't need to.   This is what our Founding Fathers believed and this is the basis for the 2nd Amendment.  Deal with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Founding Fathers were wrong
> 
> An armed population is not needed for the security of a free state....it takes standing armies to do that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are free to disagree with the Founding Fathers, comrade, but not free to change the Constitution.  I have already provided the proof that they were correct.  They had their own proof back in their day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even if you look at the "proof" during their own day, they drew the wrong conclusion
> 
> While there is a romantic vision of the Minutemen during the Revolutionary War, Militias were not effective in fighting regular British troops. They were best known for running away. It was not until the Continental Army was trained into a fighting force that we started to make progress. It was the entrance of the French with their experience and navy that finally won the war.
> 
> After the war our nation was bankrupt. We thought we could get away without having a standing army......our founders were wrong
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They didn't draw their conclusion from fighting the British, you moron.  They drew it from the history of Europe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh...I just gotta see your link on that one
Click to expand...

It was in the OP, you idiot.

_"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787_


----------



## Skull Pilot

rightwinger said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given enough time, power corrupts.  Our 2nd Amendment is our last check against tyranny.  They have none.
> 
> 
> 
> Hasn't corrupted in over 230 years
> 
> That is because we have a vote and a strong First Amendment....we have never needed the second
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Keep telling yourself that comrade.  That is exactly the argument I would expect a subversive enemy agent to make.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Comrade?
> 
> Do you realize how ridiculous that reply is on a post supporting the strength of freedom of speech, the press and voting?
> 
> Are you still in High School?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have too much faith in voters
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We will see on Tuesday, Comrade
Click to expand...


Nothing to do with the topic but whatever

Besides only about half of people who legally can vote do


----------



## ding

rightwinger said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.  After the country had been disarmed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> France was not disarmed.
> Neither was Norway, Belgium or the Netherlands
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Given enough time, power corrupts.  Our 2nd Amendment is our last check against tyranny.  They have none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hasn't corrupted in over 230 years
> 
> That is because we have a vote and a strong First Amendment....we have never needed the second
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Keep telling yourself that comrade.  That is exactly the argument I would expect a subversive enemy agent to make.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Comrade?
> 
> Do you realize how ridiculous that reply is on a post supporting the strength of freedom of speech, the press and voting?
> 
> Are you still in High School?
Click to expand...

No.  I wish.  I'm 55.  And no, that doesn't sound ridiculous as you ARE making the exact same argument that a subversive enemy agent would make.


----------



## rightwinger

ding said:


> lol,no.  I wish I was though.
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Founding Fathers were wrong
> 
> An armed population is not needed for the security of a free state....it takes standing armies to do that
> 
> 
> 
> You are free to disagree with the Founding Fathers, comrade, but not free to change the Constitution.  I have already provided the proof that they were correct.  They had their own proof back in their day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even if you look at the "proof" during their own day, they drew the wrong conclusion
> 
> While there is a romantic vision of the Minutemen during the Revolutionary War, Militias were not effective in fighting regular British troops. They were best known for running away. It was not until the Continental Army was trained into a fighting force that we started to make progress. It was the entrance of the French with their experience and navy that finally won the war.
> 
> After the war our nation was bankrupt. We thought we could get away without having a standing army......our founders were wrong
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They didn't draw their conclusion from fighting the British, you moron.  They drew it from the history of Europe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh...I just gotta see your link on that one
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was in the OP, you idiot.
> 
> _"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787_
Click to expand...


Can you imagine how naïve a time that was?...what romantic bullshit

A time when if you owned a musket, you thought you were on par with a standing Army
Even then, peasants were no match for a trained, properly led fighting force


----------



## ding

rightwinger said:


> Oh...I just gotta see your link on that one





ding said:


> It was in the OP, you idiot.
> 
> _"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787_





rightwinger said:


> Can you imagine how naïve a time that was?...what romantic bullshit  A time when if you owned a musket, you thought you were on par with a standing Army Even then, peasants were no match for a trained, properly led fighting force



can you imagine how foolish I just made you look?


----------



## emilynghiem

frigidweirdo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.
> 
> "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> "_f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
> 
> - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.
> 
> "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"
> 
> Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"
> 
> The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.
> 
> "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
> 
> "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
> 
> "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly the right to bear arms doesn't give you an armed populace. That's the right to keep arms. The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia.
> 
> i.e., the militia with citizen soldiers, that means you need people with the guns for the militia, and you need people to use the guns in the militia.
Click to expand...


Dear frigidweirdo At the time these laws were written and passed,
some states didn't even have a militia and but had similar state laws.
so this couldn't have required to belong to state militia.


----------



## emilynghiem

rightwinger said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol,no.  I wish I was though.
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are free to disagree with the Founding Fathers, comrade, but not free to change the Constitution.  I have already provided the proof that they were correct.  They had their own proof back in their day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if you look at the "proof" during their own day, they drew the wrong conclusion
> 
> While there is a romantic vision of the Minutemen during the Revolutionary War, Militias were not effective in fighting regular British troops. They were best known for running away. It was not until the Continental Army was trained into a fighting force that we started to make progress. It was the entrance of the French with their experience and navy that finally won the war.
> 
> After the war our nation was bankrupt. We thought we could get away without having a standing army......our founders were wrong
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They didn't draw their conclusion from fighting the British, you moron.  They drew it from the history of Europe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh...I just gotta see your link on that one
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was in the OP, you idiot.
> 
> _"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you imagine how naïve a time that was?...what romantic bullshit
> 
> A time when if you owned a musket, you thought you were on par with a standing Army
> Even then, peasants were no match for a trained, properly led fighting force
Click to expand...


Dear rightwinger the same holds true today, where people want their right to defense,
regardless how much greater armed forces they may be up against.

Also, at a time where British were trying to disarm the populace,
it makes sense to me the people wanted both personal right to keep and bear arms,
and they wanted militias if they could support them.

This isn't either or. It's wanting to preserve right to all of the above.

What we also need is equal right to legal defense, and laws against abusing this to violate the laws.
Otherwise, as with guns, we aren't enforcing the agreement that gun rights are to enforce laws, not violate them.
And the same is happening with legal and judicial abuse, where the right to defense
gets abused to violate instead of enforce laws.


----------



## emilynghiem

frigidweirdo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly the right to bear arms doesn't give you an armed populace. That's the right to keep arms. The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia.
> 
> i.e., the militia with citizen soldiers, that means you need people with the guns for the militia, and you need people to use the guns in the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you are splitting hairs that were not meant to be split.
> 
> _“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find on this topic there is a mass of disinformation and looking the wrong way deliberately. I'm not splitting hairs, you said it wrong and I'm happy to point people in the right direction, even if most of the times people ignore it.
> 
> The right to keep arms is the right to own weapons so the militia will have a ready supply of weapons in times of need.
> The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia so the militia will have a ready supply of personnel to use those weapons in times of need.
> 
> There's no splitting hairs. Just fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I disagree.  _To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> No where here does it say have access or have a ready supply.  It literally says possess.
> 
> possess: have as belonging to one; own.
> 
> Furthermore, at the time of ratification, how did they have a ready supply if it were not for each citizen owning his own weapon?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but throwing quotes at me doesn't change a thing.
> 
> Read this and come back to me: Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
Click to expand...


Dear frigidweirdo This is very helpful, thanks for posting it, but not complete.
There is an entire context around the right to bear arms and the militia references,
which cannot possibly be covered by just a few people as you cite here.

In the Origin of the Bill of Rights, the history of different states all contributing to this
Article was covered. And at least one of the states didn't even have a militia. So it could not have required that.

I agree with ding reference that this right is for people to use with PEACEFUL intent.
And other posts cited closer to how I would interpret this as "law abiding citizens"

So if people in a district pass a law requiring militia training and membership,
that is following the laws. And if other district don't but require citizens
take training on laws and process similar as officers, that is still law abiding.

So this interpretation would cover both.


----------



## rightwinger

ding said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh...I just gotta see your link on that one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was in the OP, you idiot.
> 
> _"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you imagine how naïve a time that was?...what romantic bullshit  A time when if you owned a musket, you thought you were on par with a standing Army Even then, peasants were no match for a trained, properly led fighting force
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> can you imagine how foolish I just made you look?
> 
> View attachment 96837
Click to expand...

Self proclaimed victories are so shallow


----------



## ding

rightwinger said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh...I just gotta see your link on that one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was in the OP, you idiot.
> 
> _"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you imagine how naïve a time that was?...what romantic bullshit  A time when if you owned a musket, you thought you were on par with a standing Army Even then, peasants were no match for a trained, properly led fighting force
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> can you imagine how foolish I just made you look?
> 
> View attachment 96837
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Self proclaimed victories are so shallow
Click to expand...

Not the ones where you demand a reference which was already in the OP.  Those are priceless.


----------



## rightwinger

emilynghiem said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol,no.  I wish I was though.
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even if you look at the "proof" during their own day, they drew the wrong conclusion
> 
> While there is a romantic vision of the Minutemen during the Revolutionary War, Militias were not effective in fighting regular British troops. They were best known for running away. It was not until the Continental Army was trained into a fighting force that we started to make progress. It was the entrance of the French with their experience and navy that finally won the war.
> 
> After the war our nation was bankrupt. We thought we could get away without having a standing army......our founders were wrong
> 
> 
> 
> They didn't draw their conclusion from fighting the British, you moron.  They drew it from the history of Europe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh...I just gotta see your link on that one
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was in the OP, you idiot.
> 
> _"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you imagine how naïve a time that was?...what romantic bullshit
> 
> A time when if you owned a musket, you thought you were on par with a standing Army
> Even then, peasants were no match for a trained, properly led fighting force
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear rightwinger the same holds true today, where people want their right to defense,
> regardless how much greater armed forces they may be up against.
> 
> Also, at a time where British were trying to disarm the populace,
> it makes sense to me the people wanted both personal right to keep and bear arms,
> and they wanted militias if they could support them.
> 
> This isn't either or. It's wanting to preserve right to all of the above.
> 
> What we also need is equal right to legal defense, and laws against abusing this to violate the laws.
> Otherwise, as with guns, we aren't enforcing the agreement that gun rights are to enforce laws, not violate them.
> And the same is happening with legal and judicial abuse, where the right to defense
> gets abused to violate instead of enforce laws.
Click to expand...

Dear Emily

Anyone who thinks they need their gun to fight off the government is not a real American

If I am not satisfied with my government, I vote them out of office and use my freedom of speech to voice my displeasure. That is the glory of our Constitution and has kept government in check for 235 years


----------



## ding

rightwinger said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol,no.  I wish I was though.
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> They didn't draw their conclusion from fighting the British, you moron.  They drew it from the history of Europe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh...I just gotta see your link on that one
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was in the OP, you idiot.
> 
> _"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you imagine how naïve a time that was?...what romantic bullshit
> 
> A time when if you owned a musket, you thought you were on par with a standing Army
> Even then, peasants were no match for a trained, properly led fighting force
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear rightwinger the same holds true today, where people want their right to defense,
> regardless how much greater armed forces they may be up against.
> 
> Also, at a time where British were trying to disarm the populace,
> it makes sense to me the people wanted both personal right to keep and bear arms,
> and they wanted militias if they could support them.
> 
> This isn't either or. It's wanting to preserve right to all of the above.
> 
> What we also need is equal right to legal defense, and laws against abusing this to violate the laws.
> Otherwise, as with guns, we aren't enforcing the agreement that gun rights are to enforce laws, not violate them.
> And the same is happening with legal and judicial abuse, where the right to defense
> gets abused to violate instead of enforce laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Emily
> 
> Anyone who thinks they need their gun to fight off the government is not a real American
> 
> If I am not satisfied with my government, I vote them out of office and use my freedom of speech to voice my displeasure. That is the glory of our Constitution and has kept government in check for 235 years
Click to expand...

You are naive.  The useful idiots are the first ones to go.


----------



## emilynghiem

rightwinger said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol,no.  I wish I was though.
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> They didn't draw their conclusion from fighting the British, you moron.  They drew it from the history of Europe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh...I just gotta see your link on that one
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was in the OP, you idiot.
> 
> _"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you imagine how naïve a time that was?...what romantic bullshit
> 
> A time when if you owned a musket, you thought you were on par with a standing Army
> Even then, peasants were no match for a trained, properly led fighting force
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear rightwinger the same holds true today, where people want their right to defense,
> regardless how much greater armed forces they may be up against.
> 
> Also, at a time where British were trying to disarm the populace,
> it makes sense to me the people wanted both personal right to keep and bear arms,
> and they wanted militias if they could support them.
> 
> This isn't either or. It's wanting to preserve right to all of the above.
> 
> What we also need is equal right to legal defense, and laws against abusing this to violate the laws.
> Otherwise, as with guns, we aren't enforcing the agreement that gun rights are to enforce laws, not violate them.
> And the same is happening with legal and judicial abuse, where the right to defense
> gets abused to violate instead of enforce laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Emily
> 
> Anyone who thinks they need their gun to fight off the government is not a real American
> 
> If I am not satisfied with my government, I vote them out of office and use my freedom of speech to voice my displeasure. That is the glory of our Constitution and has kept government in check for 235 years
Click to expand...


Dear rightwinger
It's not the gun but the choice they want.
Like people who fight for abortion rights, don't all want abortions, they want the
choice not to have govt interfere that personally with them. Similar with gun rights.
They don't trust govt to regulate those, just like not trusting govt to regulate abortion rights.

It symbolizes a line in the sand where govt cannot tell you to give up your free choice.

Same with voting rights that are sacred to people.
They don't want these regulated because that opens the door to all manner of restrictions.
So even if it means fraud, they'd rather have rights.

And even with gun violence and abuse, people would rather have rights and choice.

It's symbolic of freedom to defend one's beliefs, rights principles and persons.

I don't think it says anything against anyone
if they believe such a right is sacred.

I just ask that people be honest about their beliefs and consent,
so we can make govt policies that respect each other's limits
on what we are or are not willing to go with these laws.

Everyone has their own pet issues.

I don't need Courts telling me I have the right to marriage to
write out my own contract and decide what I believe about marriage.
But other people, that means something to them when
the Supreme Court recognizes this right to marriage
I say people already have by religious freedom.

So everyone has a different sacred cow that symbolizes freedom to them.
Let them have their sacred cows.


----------



## rightwinger

ding said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol,no.  I wish I was though.
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh...I just gotta see your link on that one
> 
> 
> 
> It was in the OP, you idiot.
> 
> _"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you imagine how naïve a time that was?...what romantic bullshit
> 
> A time when if you owned a musket, you thought you were on par with a standing Army
> Even then, peasants were no match for a trained, properly led fighting force
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear rightwinger the same holds true today, where people want their right to defense,
> regardless how much greater armed forces they may be up against.
> 
> Also, at a time where British were trying to disarm the populace,
> it makes sense to me the people wanted both personal right to keep and bear arms,
> and they wanted militias if they could support them.
> 
> This isn't either or. It's wanting to preserve right to all of the above.
> 
> What we also need is equal right to legal defense, and laws against abusing this to violate the laws.
> Otherwise, as with guns, we aren't enforcing the agreement that gun rights are to enforce laws, not violate them.
> And the same is happening with legal and judicial abuse, where the right to defense
> gets abused to violate instead of enforce laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Emily
> 
> Anyone who thinks they need their gun to fight off the government is not a real American
> 
> If I am not satisfied with my government, I vote them out of office and use my freedom of speech to voice my displeasure. That is the glory of our Constitution and has kept government in check for 235 years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are naive.  The useful idiots are the first ones to go.
Click to expand...

Never in the history of our nation has it been necessary to use weapons to keep the government in check

Those who have tried have been arrested or executed for treason


----------



## rightwinger

emilynghiem said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol,no.  I wish I was though.
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh...I just gotta see your link on that one
> 
> 
> 
> It was in the OP, you idiot.
> 
> _"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you imagine how naïve a time that was?...what romantic bullshit
> 
> A time when if you owned a musket, you thought you were on par with a standing Army
> Even then, peasants were no match for a trained, properly led fighting force
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear rightwinger the same holds true today, where people want their right to defense,
> regardless how much greater armed forces they may be up against.
> 
> Also, at a time where British were trying to disarm the populace,
> it makes sense to me the people wanted both personal right to keep and bear arms,
> and they wanted militias if they could support them.
> 
> This isn't either or. It's wanting to preserve right to all of the above.
> 
> What we also need is equal right to legal defense, and laws against abusing this to violate the laws.
> Otherwise, as with guns, we aren't enforcing the agreement that gun rights are to enforce laws, not violate them.
> And the same is happening with legal and judicial abuse, where the right to defense
> gets abused to violate instead of enforce laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Emily
> 
> Anyone who thinks they need their gun to fight off the government is not a real American
> 
> If I am not satisfied with my government, I vote them out of office and use my freedom of speech to voice my displeasure. That is the glory of our Constitution and has kept government in check for 235 years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear rightwinger
> It's not the gun but the choice they want.
> Like people who fight for abortion rights, don't all want abortions, they want the
> choice not to have govt interfere that personally with them. Similar with gun rights.
> They don't trust govt to regulate those, just like not trusting govt to regulate abortion rights.
> 
> It symbolizes a line in the sand where govt cannot tell you to give up your free choice.
> 
> Same with voting rights that are sacred to people.
> They don't want these regulated because that opens the door to all manner of restrictions.
> So even if it means fraud, they'd rather have rights.
> 
> And even with gun violence and abuse, people would rather have rights and choice.
> 
> It's symbolic of freedom to defend one's beliefs, rights principles and persons.
> 
> I don't think it says anything against anyone
> if they believe such a right is sacred.
> 
> I just ask that people be honest about their beliefs and consent,
> so we can make govt policies that respect each other's limits
> on what we are or are not willing to go with these laws.
> 
> Everyone has their own pet issues.
> 
> I don't need Courts telling me I have the right to marriage to
> write out my own contract and decide what I believe about marriage.
> But other people, that means something to them when
> the Supreme Court recognizes this right to marriage
> I say people already have by religious freedom.
> 
> So everyone has a different sacred cow that symbolizes freedom to them.
> Let them have their sacred cows.
Click to expand...


Dear Emily

Using guns to resolve your grievances is not a choice.


----------



## ding

rightwinger said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol,no.  I wish I was though.
> It was in the OP, you idiot.
> 
> _"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you imagine how naïve a time that was?...what romantic bullshit
> 
> A time when if you owned a musket, you thought you were on par with a standing Army
> Even then, peasants were no match for a trained, properly led fighting force
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear rightwinger the same holds true today, where people want their right to defense,
> regardless how much greater armed forces they may be up against.
> 
> Also, at a time where British were trying to disarm the populace,
> it makes sense to me the people wanted both personal right to keep and bear arms,
> and they wanted militias if they could support them.
> 
> This isn't either or. It's wanting to preserve right to all of the above.
> 
> What we also need is equal right to legal defense, and laws against abusing this to violate the laws.
> Otherwise, as with guns, we aren't enforcing the agreement that gun rights are to enforce laws, not violate them.
> And the same is happening with legal and judicial abuse, where the right to defense
> gets abused to violate instead of enforce laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Emily
> 
> Anyone who thinks they need their gun to fight off the government is not a real American
> 
> If I am not satisfied with my government, I vote them out of office and use my freedom of speech to voice my displeasure. That is the glory of our Constitution and has kept government in check for 235 years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are naive.  The useful idiots are the first ones to go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Never in the history of our nation has it been necessary to use weapons to keep the government in check
> 
> Those who have tried have been arrested or executed for treason
Click to expand...

That's because we have guns.


----------



## Tennyson

emilynghiem said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.
> 
> "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> "_f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
> 
> - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.
> 
> "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"
> 
> Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"
> 
> The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.
> 
> "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
> 
> "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
> 
> "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly the right to bear arms doesn't give you an armed populace. That's the right to keep arms. The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia.
> 
> i.e., the militia with citizen soldiers, that means you need people with the guns for the militia, and you need people to use the guns in the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear frigidweirdo At the time these laws were written and passed,
> some states didn't even have a militia and but had similar state laws.
> so this couldn't have required to belong to state militia.
Click to expand...


Emilynghiem,

There is a Supreme Court ruling from 1886, I believe, called _Presser v. Illinois_. It is a short read and touches on the concept in your posts. I think you can find the ruling on Google Scholar.


----------



## Vandalshandle

ding said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> History has proven the Founding Fathers wrong
> 
> Even in the Revolutionary War where local militias were actually used, they were found to be minimally effective. It was not the local minuteman that won the war.......It was the Continental Army and the French Navy
> 
> The Founders disdained the idea of a standing Army....once again, history proved them wrong. Lack of a standing Army almost cost us the country in 1812. We also suffered for it during WWI and WWII
> 
> Armies are not a bunch of guys with guns running around and shooting at stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe history has proven the Founding Fathers wrong that a well armed populace is the best protection of freedom and liberty.  I believe you making fringe arguments that don't go to the heart of addressing what the Founding Fathers knew and history has proven.
> 
> 1911 – Turkey disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1915 – 1917 they murdered 1.5 million Armenians.
> 
> 1929 – Russia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1929 – 1953 they murdered 20 million Russians.
> 
> 1935 – China disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1948 – 1952 they murdered 20 million Chinese.
> 
> 1938 – Germany disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1939 – 1945 they murdered 16 million Jews.
> 
> 1956 – Cambodia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1975 – 1977 they murdered 1 million Educated people.
> 
> 1964 – Guatemala disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1964 – 1981 they murdered 100,000 Mayan Indians.
> 
> 1970 – Uganda disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1971 – 1979 they murdered 300,000 Christians.
> 
> Death by "Gun Control"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice try but proves nothing
> 
> None of your examples prove that if the population had been armed they would have overwhelmed the government forces. In fact, it would have led to greater slaughter
> 
> Most importantly, none of them had a free press, freedom of speech or a vote that would have prevented the despotic rulers to come into power
> 
> If you have a strong first amendment, you have no need for a second
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Really? you cant be serious.   If you are correct that there is no proof armed populations would have protected themselves from slaughter and genocide,  than why is it that all of those cases occurred after the populations were disarmed?  Why didnt those things happen while the populations were still armed?  It had to be after and the proof is pretty self evident unless you happen to be an attorney, then you might work some way around it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure that the Armenian peasants and shepherds had a lot of guns confiscated. Maybe 10 or 11, anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know this how?  Let me ask you this, if you are right in your belief, why would they have needed to ban guns in the first place?
Click to expand...


Well, there was this little dust up going on, which was later referred to as WWI, in which all of the various ethnic cultures under domination of the Turks were trying to overthrow the Turks. You must have heard about it. It was in all the papers....

Private ownership of guns in that region was almost unheard of at the time. They were lucky if they could afford a dagger.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

And again:

There is nothing in the history, text, or case law of the Second Amendment enumerating the criteria and conditions as to when government becomes ‘tyrannical,’ no Constitutional ‘tripwire’ that authorizes the people to ‘take up arms’ against an otherwise just and proper government, simply because a reactionary, rightwing minority might subjectively and incorrectly perceive it as such.

Indeed, even the _Heller _Court acknowledges the fact that armed citizens comprising a ‘militia’ would never be successful against the armed forces of the United States:

“It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks.”

The Second Amendment recognizes an individual right to possess firearms pursuant to the right of lawful self-defense, a right which prohibits government from enacting unreasonable restrictions concerning the regulation of firearms.

It is not a ‘right’ to oppose with force of arms a government which is functioning in accordance with Constitutional case law, at the behest, and with the consent, of the people.


----------



## rightwinger

ding said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you imagine how naïve a time that was?...what romantic bullshit
> 
> A time when if you owned a musket, you thought you were on par with a standing Army
> Even then, peasants were no match for a trained, properly led fighting force
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear rightwinger the same holds true today, where people want their right to defense,
> regardless how much greater armed forces they may be up against.
> 
> Also, at a time where British were trying to disarm the populace,
> it makes sense to me the people wanted both personal right to keep and bear arms,
> and they wanted militias if they could support them.
> 
> This isn't either or. It's wanting to preserve right to all of the above.
> 
> What we also need is equal right to legal defense, and laws against abusing this to violate the laws.
> Otherwise, as with guns, we aren't enforcing the agreement that gun rights are to enforce laws, not violate them.
> And the same is happening with legal and judicial abuse, where the right to defense
> gets abused to violate instead of enforce laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Emily
> 
> Anyone who thinks they need their gun to fight off the government is not a real American
> 
> If I am not satisfied with my government, I vote them out of office and use my freedom of speech to voice my displeasure. That is the glory of our Constitution and has kept government in check for 235 years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are naive.  The useful idiots are the first ones to go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Never in the history of our nation has it been necessary to use weapons to keep the government in check
> 
> Those who have tried have been arrested or executed for treason
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's because we have guns.
Click to expand...

They are useless against a modern military force

The Government fears your vote more than your guns


----------



## Vandalshandle

It would be very difficult to muster a company of militia. At any one time, about 30% of them are getting tattoos.


----------



## ding

rightwinger said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear rightwinger the same holds true today, where people want their right to defense,
> regardless how much greater armed forces they may be up against.
> 
> Also, at a time where British were trying to disarm the populace,
> it makes sense to me the people wanted both personal right to keep and bear arms,
> and they wanted militias if they could support them.
> 
> This isn't either or. It's wanting to preserve right to all of the above.
> 
> What we also need is equal right to legal defense, and laws against abusing this to violate the laws.
> Otherwise, as with guns, we aren't enforcing the agreement that gun rights are to enforce laws, not violate them.
> And the same is happening with legal and judicial abuse, where the right to defense
> gets abused to violate instead of enforce laws.
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Emily
> 
> Anyone who thinks they need their gun to fight off the government is not a real American
> 
> If I am not satisfied with my government, I vote them out of office and use my freedom of speech to voice my displeasure. That is the glory of our Constitution and has kept government in check for 235 years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are naive.  The useful idiots are the first ones to go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Never in the history of our nation has it been necessary to use weapons to keep the government in check
> 
> Those who have tried have been arrested or executed for treason
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's because we have guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are useless against a modern military force
> 
> The Government fears your vote more than your guns
Click to expand...

Why can't they fear both?


----------



## ding

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> And again:
> 
> There is nothing in the history, text, or case law of the Second Amendment enumerating the criteria and conditions as to when government becomes ‘tyrannical,’ no Constitutional ‘tripwire’ that authorizes the people to ‘take up arms’ against an otherwise just and proper government, simply because a reactionary, rightwing minority might subjectively and incorrectly perceive it as such.
> 
> Indeed, even the _Heller _Court acknowledges the fact that armed citizens comprising a ‘militia’ would never be successful against the armed forces of the United States:
> 
> “It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks.”
> 
> The Second Amendment recognizes an individual right to possess firearms pursuant to the right of lawful self-defense, a right which prohibits government from enacting unreasonable restrictions concerning the regulation of firearms.
> 
> It is not a ‘right’ to oppose with force of arms a government which is functioning in accordance with Constitutional case law, at the behest, and with the consent, of the people.


Well, why didn't you say that before... which guns would you like to ban and confiscate?


----------



## ding

Vandalshandle said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe history has proven the Founding Fathers wrong that a well armed populace is the best protection of freedom and liberty.  I believe you making fringe arguments that don't go to the heart of addressing what the Founding Fathers knew and history has proven.
> 
> 1911 – Turkey disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1915 – 1917 they murdered 1.5 million Armenians.
> 
> 1929 – Russia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1929 – 1953 they murdered 20 million Russians.
> 
> 1935 – China disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1948 – 1952 they murdered 20 million Chinese.
> 
> 1938 – Germany disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1939 – 1945 they murdered 16 million Jews.
> 
> 1956 – Cambodia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1975 – 1977 they murdered 1 million Educated people.
> 
> 1964 – Guatemala disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1964 – 1981 they murdered 100,000 Mayan Indians.
> 
> 1970 – Uganda disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1971 – 1979 they murdered 300,000 Christians.
> 
> Death by "Gun Control"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try but proves nothing
> 
> None of your examples prove that if the population had been armed they would have overwhelmed the government forces. In fact, it would have led to greater slaughter
> 
> Most importantly, none of them had a free press, freedom of speech or a vote that would have prevented the despotic rulers to come into power
> 
> If you have a strong first amendment, you have no need for a second
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Really? you cant be serious.   If you are correct that there is no proof armed populations would have protected themselves from slaughter and genocide,  than why is it that all of those cases occurred after the populations were disarmed?  Why didnt those things happen while the populations were still armed?  It had to be after and the proof is pretty self evident unless you happen to be an attorney, then you might work some way around it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure that the Armenian peasants and shepherds had a lot of guns confiscated. Maybe 10 or 11, anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know this how?  Let me ask you this, if you are right in your belief, why would they have needed to ban guns in the first place?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, there was this little dust up going on, which was later referred to as WWI, in which all of the various ethnic cultures under domination of the Turks were trying to overthrow the Turks. You must have heard about it. It was in all the papers....
> 
> Private ownership of guns in that region was almost unheard of at the time. They were lucky if they could afford a dagger.
Click to expand...

I see.  Let me ask you this, if there were no guns in the first place, why would they have needed to ban guns?


----------



## emilynghiem

rightwinger said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear rightwinger the same holds true today, where people want their right to defense,
> regardless how much greater armed forces they may be up against.
> 
> Also, at a time where British were trying to disarm the populace,
> it makes sense to me the people wanted both personal right to keep and bear arms,
> and they wanted militias if they could support them.
> 
> This isn't either or. It's wanting to preserve right to all of the above.
> 
> What we also need is equal right to legal defense, and laws against abusing this to violate the laws.
> Otherwise, as with guns, we aren't enforcing the agreement that gun rights are to enforce laws, not violate them.
> And the same is happening with legal and judicial abuse, where the right to defense
> gets abused to violate instead of enforce laws.
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Emily
> 
> Anyone who thinks they need their gun to fight off the government is not a real American
> 
> If I am not satisfied with my government, I vote them out of office and use my freedom of speech to voice my displeasure. That is the glory of our Constitution and has kept government in check for 235 years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are naive.  The useful idiots are the first ones to go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Never in the history of our nation has it been necessary to use weapons to keep the government in check
> 
> Those who have tried have been arrested or executed for treason
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's because we have guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are useless against a modern military force
> 
> The Government fears your vote more than your guns
Click to expand...


Dear rightwinger What are you saying? 
They know they can buy votes. By pimping the abortion issue,
the gun vote, the black vote, the green vote.

If the people agreed to resolve all our issues by consensus,
including to agree which decisions to make by majority rule where it's a toss up,
the govt would have to do what we the people say we let them do.

They'd become an exact reflection of what we  say goes or doesn't go,
or else nobody would follow, and we'd hire other people willing to do the job as we say.

So if we all agreed that gun rights can't be changed except by consensus
among the people and parties how to write the laws, NOBODY could threaten
that this party or that one is going to force their way. It would be barred.

The people would agree nothing is going to change anyway unless we AGREE on the law.
So nobody could threaten and use that to pimp votes.
You vote directly for the issues, and the govt has to follow what you say.


----------



## rightwinger

ding said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Emily
> 
> Anyone who thinks they need their gun to fight off the government is not a real American
> 
> If I am not satisfied with my government, I vote them out of office and use my freedom of speech to voice my displeasure. That is the glory of our Constitution and has kept government in check for 235 years
> 
> 
> 
> You are naive.  The useful idiots are the first ones to go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Never in the history of our nation has it been necessary to use weapons to keep the government in check
> 
> Those who have tried have been arrested or executed for treason
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's because we have guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are useless against a modern military force
> 
> The Government fears your vote more than your guns
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why can't they fear both?
Click to expand...

Why would they fear your guns?

Other than when you gun nuts were assassinating anyone who you disagreed with?

You may kill some politicians, but the government carries on


----------



## rightwinger

emilynghiem said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Emily
> 
> Anyone who thinks they need their gun to fight off the government is not a real American
> 
> If I am not satisfied with my government, I vote them out of office and use my freedom of speech to voice my displeasure. That is the glory of our Constitution and has kept government in check for 235 years
> 
> 
> 
> You are naive.  The useful idiots are the first ones to go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Never in the history of our nation has it been necessary to use weapons to keep the government in check
> 
> Those who have tried have been arrested or executed for treason
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's because we have guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are useless against a modern military force
> 
> The Government fears your vote more than your guns
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear rightwinger What are you saying?
> They know they can buy votes. By pimping the abortion issue,
> the gun vote, the black vote, the green vote.
> 
> If the people agreed to resolve all our issues by consensus,
> including to agree which decisions to make by majority rule where it's a toss up,
> the govt would have to do what we the people say we let them do.
> 
> They'd become an exact reflection of what we  say goes or doesn't go,
> or else nobody would follow, and we'd hire other people willing to do the job as we say.
> 
> So if we all agreed that gun rights can't be changed except by consensus
> among the people and parties how to write the laws, NOBODY could threaten
> that this party or that one is going to force their way. It would be barred.
> 
> The people would agree nothing is going to change anyway unless we AGREE on the law.
> So nobody could threaten and use that to pimp votes.
> You vote directly for the issues, and the govt has to follow what you say.
Click to expand...

How does one obtain consensus?


----------



## Yarddog

Vandalshandle said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe history has proven the Founding Fathers wrong that a well armed populace is the best protection of freedom and liberty.  I believe you making fringe arguments that don't go to the heart of addressing what the Founding Fathers knew and history has proven.
> 
> 1911 – Turkey disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1915 – 1917 they murdered 1.5 million Armenians.
> 
> 1929 – Russia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1929 – 1953 they murdered 20 million Russians.
> 
> 1935 – China disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1948 – 1952 they murdered 20 million Chinese.
> 
> 1938 – Germany disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1939 – 1945 they murdered 16 million Jews.
> 
> 1956 – Cambodia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1975 – 1977 they murdered 1 million Educated people.
> 
> 1964 – Guatemala disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1964 – 1981 they murdered 100,000 Mayan Indians.
> 
> 1970 – Uganda disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1971 – 1979 they murdered 300,000 Christians.
> 
> Death by "Gun Control"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try but proves nothing
> 
> None of your examples prove that if the population had been armed they would have overwhelmed the government forces. In fact, it would have led to greater slaughter
> 
> Most importantly, none of them had a free press, freedom of speech or a vote that would have prevented the despotic rulers to come into power
> 
> If you have a strong first amendment, you have no need for a second
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Really? you cant be serious.   If you are correct that there is no proof armed populations would have protected themselves from slaughter and genocide,  than why is it that all of those cases occurred after the populations were disarmed?  Why didnt those things happen while the populations were still armed?  It had to be after and the proof is pretty self evident unless you happen to be an attorney, then you might work some way around it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure that the Armenian peasants and shepherds had a lot of guns confiscated. Maybe 10 or 11, anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know this how?  Let me ask you this, if you are right in your belief, why would they have needed to ban guns in the first place?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, there was this little dust up going on, which was later referred to as WWI, in which all of the various ethnic cultures under domination of the Turks were trying to overthrow the Turks. You must have heard about it. It was in all the papers....
> 
> Private ownership of guns in that region was almost unheard of at the time. They were lucky if they could afford a dagger.
Click to expand...



Please explain how things could have been any worse for the Armenians when the Turks went marching through their streets going door to door and the Armenians were armed. If anything, perhaps a few more families would have escaped. I'm sure most of them were taken by surprise.  

Please someone name a genocide taken against a civilian population by its own gov. when that population was armed.  It hasnt happened yet but on the flip side....  well, the facts are what they are

The Armenian Genocide of 1915


*World War I Begins and the Genocide Follows*
The Ottoman Empire allied with Germany and Austria-Hungary in World War I. Fearing that Armenians would side with Russia, a Christian nation, the Turks disarmed the Armenian population. When the Russians handed the Turks a crushing defeat at the battle of Sarikemish in the Caucuses, the Turks accused the Armenians of fighting for the Russians and blamed them for the loss. In response, the Young Turks ordered the execution or deportation of the Armenian population. The genocide began on April 24, 1915, when the Turkish government arrested and executed about 300 intellectuals. Turks went door to door, rounding up male Armenians. They shot and killed them. Women, children, and the elderly were sent on death marches through the Syrian desert to concentration camps. Hundreds died of thirst, starvation, and exposure along the way. Those who stopped to rest were shot. Many Armenian children were spared death, but were forced to convert to Islam and join Turkish families. The government passed legislation to confiscate Armenian property. As many as 2 million Armenians were living in the Ottoman Empire just before the outbreak of World War I. At the end of the genocide, there were just 388,000 Armenians remaining there.


----------



## emilynghiem

rightwinger said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are naive.  The useful idiots are the first ones to go.
> 
> 
> 
> Never in the history of our nation has it been necessary to use weapons to keep the government in check
> 
> Those who have tried have been arrested or executed for treason
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's because we have guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are useless against a modern military force
> 
> The Government fears your vote more than your guns
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear rightwinger What are you saying?
> They know they can buy votes. By pimping the abortion issue,
> the gun vote, the black vote, the green vote.
> 
> If the people agreed to resolve all our issues by consensus,
> including to agree which decisions to make by majority rule where it's a toss up,
> the govt would have to do what we the people say we let them do.
> 
> They'd become an exact reflection of what we  say goes or doesn't go,
> or else nobody would follow, and we'd hire other people willing to do the job as we say.
> 
> So if we all agreed that gun rights can't be changed except by consensus
> among the people and parties how to write the laws, NOBODY could threaten
> that this party or that one is going to force their way. It would be barred.
> 
> The people would agree nothing is going to change anyway unless we AGREE on the law.
> So nobody could threaten and use that to pimp votes.
> You vote directly for the issues, and the govt has to follow what you say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does one obtain consensus?
Click to expand...


Dear rightwinger
You find out what both sides want.
You list out objections and limits, what both sides don't want or what they are concerned they want to address or prevent.
You work out ways to achieve the goals they both want, without causing the unintended
consequences or complications they don't want.

Where there are shared costs or responsibilities, just like a married couple, you find out what
they agree to share and where they don't and have to separate policies, funding or means of taking
care of areas in separate ways where they aren't responsible for the other person's and aren't affected.

I'd say it's like marriage counseling and trying to separate
what one partner puts on their account, what the other puts on theirs,
and what they share on the joint account.  And making sure they
don't impose on each other or leave anything out.


----------



## Yarddog

rightwinger said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are naive.  The useful idiots are the first ones to go.
> 
> 
> 
> Never in the history of our nation has it been necessary to use weapons to keep the government in check
> 
> Those who have tried have been arrested or executed for treason
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's because we have guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are useless against a modern military force
> 
> The Government fears your vote more than your guns
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why can't they fear both?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would they fear your guns?
> 
> Other than when you gun nuts were assassinating anyone who you disagreed with?
> 
> You may kill some politicians, but the government carries on
Click to expand...



You make this seem like a wide spread problem, assasinating people. You sure your not talking about Mexico?
When was this?  And also, many of these mass shooters in recent years have been drugged up courtesy of Big Pharma's medical experiments on the American people, via anti- depressants etc


----------



## Yarddog

emilynghiem said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Emily
> 
> Anyone who thinks they need their gun to fight off the government is not a real American
> 
> If I am not satisfied with my government, I vote them out of office and use my freedom of speech to voice my displeasure. That is the glory of our Constitution and has kept government in check for 235 years
> 
> 
> 
> You are naive.  The useful idiots are the first ones to go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Never in the history of our nation has it been necessary to use weapons to keep the government in check
> 
> Those who have tried have been arrested or executed for treason
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's because we have guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are useless against a modern military force
> 
> The Government fears your vote more than your guns
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear rightwinger What are you saying?
> They know they can buy votes. By pimping the abortion issue,
> the gun vote, the black vote, the green vote.
> 
> If the people agreed to resolve all our issues by consensus,
> including to agree which decisions to make by majority rule where it's a toss up,
> the govt would have to do what we the people say we let them do.
> 
> They'd become an exact reflection of what we  say goes or doesn't go,
> or else nobody would follow, and we'd hire other people willing to do the job as we say.
> 
> So if we all agreed that gun rights can't be changed except by consensus
> among the people and parties how to write the laws, NOBODY could threaten
> that this party or that one is going to force their way. It would be barred.
> 
> The people would agree nothing is going to change anyway unless we AGREE on the law.
> So nobody could threaten and use that to pimp votes.
> You vote directly for the issues, and the govt has to follow what you say.
Click to expand...



Concensus  can be manipulated as well when one side can influence and or control the media in favor of their viewpoints.


----------



## rightwinger

Yarddog said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never in the history of our nation has it been necessary to use weapons to keep the government in check
> 
> Those who have tried have been arrested or executed for treason
> 
> 
> 
> That's because we have guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are useless against a modern military force
> 
> The Government fears your vote more than your guns
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why can't they fear both?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would they fear your guns?
> 
> Other than when you gun nuts were assassinating anyone who you disagreed with?
> 
> You may kill some politicians, but the government carries on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You make this seem like a wide spread problem, assasinating people. You sure your not talking about Mexico?
> When was this?  And also, many of these mass shooters in recent years have been drugged up courtesy of Big Pharma's medical experiments on the American people, via anti- depressants etc
Click to expand...


You missed the America I grew up in where guns were used to solve political problems....

JFK, MLK, Bobby Kennedy, Ford, Reagan, John Lennon, Wallace


----------



## ding

rightwinger said:


> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's because we have guns.
> 
> 
> 
> They are useless against a modern military force
> 
> The Government fears your vote more than your guns
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why can't they fear both?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would they fear your guns?
> 
> Other than when you gun nuts were assassinating anyone who you disagreed with?
> 
> You may kill some politicians, but the government carries on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You make this seem like a wide spread problem, assasinating people. You sure your not talking about Mexico?
> When was this?  And also, many of these mass shooters in recent years have been drugged up courtesy of Big Pharma's medical experiments on the American people, via anti- depressants etc
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You missed the America I grew up in where guns were used to solve political problems....
> 
> JFK, MLK, Bobby Kennedy, Ford, Reagan, John Lennon, Wallace
Click to expand...

No.  I was there.  A little young for the 1st three.  So which guns would you like to ban?


----------



## ding

rightwinger said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are naive.  The useful idiots are the first ones to go.
> 
> 
> 
> Never in the history of our nation has it been necessary to use weapons to keep the government in check
> 
> Those who have tried have been arrested or executed for treason
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's because we have guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are useless against a modern military force
> 
> The Government fears your vote more than your guns
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why can't they fear both?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would they fear your guns?
> 
> Other than when you gun nuts were assassinating anyone who you disagreed with?
> 
> You may kill some politicians, but the government carries on
Click to expand...

I have explained it to you at least three times.  Go back and read the OP, amigo.

Which guns would you like to ban?


----------



## Yarddog

rightwinger said:


> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's because we have guns.
> 
> 
> 
> They are useless against a modern military force
> 
> The Government fears your vote more than your guns
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why can't they fear both?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would they fear your guns?
> 
> Other than when you gun nuts were assassinating anyone who you disagreed with?
> 
> You may kill some politicians, but the government carries on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You make this seem like a wide spread problem, assasinating people. You sure your not talking about Mexico?
> When was this?  And also, many of these mass shooters in recent years have been drugged up courtesy of Big Pharma's medical experiments on the American people, via anti- depressants etc
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You missed the America I grew up in where guns were used to solve political problems....
> 
> JFK, MLK, Bobby Kennedy, Ford, Reagan, John Lennon, Wallace
Click to expand...


The problem is when you start saying YOU gun nuts, as though the average American who supports the 2nd amendment can be equated with whoever assasinated those mentioned.  Most people are never going to dream of rising up against the government, nor do I.  Guns don't need to be used to be a deterent.  They simply need to be owned by people to be a deterent.


----------



## ding

rightwinger said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are naive.  The useful idiots are the first ones to go.
> 
> 
> 
> Never in the history of our nation has it been necessary to use weapons to keep the government in check
> 
> Those who have tried have been arrested or executed for treason
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's because we have guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are useless against a modern military force
> 
> The Government fears your vote more than your guns
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why can't they fear both?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would they fear your guns?
> 
> Other than when you gun nuts were assassinating anyone who you disagreed with?
> 
> You may kill some politicians, but the government carries on
Click to expand...

We are going in circles now.  I've explained this to you already.  So let's just move on to your logical conclusion.  Would you like to ban and confiscate guns to alleviate your irrational fears?


----------



## rightwinger

ding said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are useless against a modern military force
> 
> The Government fears your vote more than your guns
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't they fear both?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would they fear your guns?
> 
> Other than when you gun nuts were assassinating anyone who you disagreed with?
> 
> You may kill some politicians, but the government carries on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You make this seem like a wide spread problem, assasinating people. You sure your not talking about Mexico?
> When was this?  And also, many of these mass shooters in recent years have been drugged up courtesy of Big Pharma's medical experiments on the American people, via anti- depressants etc
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You missed the America I grew up in where guns were used to solve political problems....
> 
> JFK, MLK, Bobby Kennedy, Ford, Reagan, John Lennon, Wallace
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I was there.  A little young for the 1st three.  So which guns would you like to ban?
Click to expand...

I am OK with the guns...I would like to ban the owners


----------



## rightwinger

ding said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never in the history of our nation has it been necessary to use weapons to keep the government in check
> 
> Those who have tried have been arrested or executed for treason
> 
> 
> 
> That's because we have guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are useless against a modern military force
> 
> The Government fears your vote more than your guns
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why can't they fear both?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would they fear your guns?
> 
> Other than when you gun nuts were assassinating anyone who you disagreed with?
> 
> You may kill some politicians, but the government carries on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are going in circles now.  I've explained this to you already.  So let's just move on to your logical conclusion.  Would you like to ban and confiscate guns to alleviate your irrational fears?
Click to expand...


We have 300 million guns out there. Too late to do anything about it

I just think that any gun owner that thinks he needs guns and ammo for the day when he has to fight our government is a fucking asshole
Wouldn't you agree?


----------



## ding

rightwinger said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's because we have guns.
> 
> 
> 
> They are useless against a modern military force
> 
> The Government fears your vote more than your guns
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why can't they fear both?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would they fear your guns?
> 
> Other than when you gun nuts were assassinating anyone who you disagreed with?
> 
> You may kill some politicians, but the government carries on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are going in circles now.  I've explained this to you already.  So let's just move on to your logical conclusion.  Would you like to ban and confiscate guns to alleviate your irrational fears?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have 300 million guns out there. Too late to do anything about it
> 
> I just think that any gun owner that thinks he needs guns and ammo for the day when he has to fight our government is a fucking asshole
> Wouldn't you agree?
Click to expand...

Call me an asshole then because I own several guns.  I have enough ammo to last me some time because gun control assholes keep causing supply disruptions. I also had to buy reloading supplies for the same reason.   It's the only way I can keep ammo for my COMPETITIVE shooting.

So basically you just want to vent off steam.  Good for you.  Vent away.  There's lot's of things I don't like either.


----------



## ding

rightwinger said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't they fear both?
> 
> 
> 
> Why would they fear your guns?
> 
> Other than when you gun nuts were assassinating anyone who you disagreed with?
> 
> You may kill some politicians, but the government carries on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You make this seem like a wide spread problem, assasinating people. You sure your not talking about Mexico?
> When was this?  And also, many of these mass shooters in recent years have been drugged up courtesy of Big Pharma's medical experiments on the American people, via anti- depressants etc
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You missed the America I grew up in where guns were used to solve political problems....
> 
> JFK, MLK, Bobby Kennedy, Ford, Reagan, John Lennon, Wallace
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I was there.  A little young for the 1st three.  So which guns would you like to ban?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am OK with the guns...I would like to ban the owners
Click to expand...

That doesn't surprise me at all.  Modern liberals are the closest thing we have to Nazis today.  If you could round up everyone you didn't like, I have no doubt you would.  Me?  I like diversity.  It stirs the pot of the conflict and confusion process.  That's how objective truth rises to the top.  Error can't stand, it eventually fails.  That's why I don't worry to much about assholes like you.  Eventually you will Darwinize yourself out of existence.  We are just one global thermal nuclear war away from the big cities getting killed off and the end of your stupid utopia fantasy.  Of course it could also be one of seven other scenarios that have you guys eating each other to survive.  Come on giant meteor 2016!


----------



## Vandalshandle

Yarddog said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try but proves nothing
> 
> None of your examples prove that if the population had been armed they would have overwhelmed the government forces. In fact, it would have led to greater slaughter
> 
> Most importantly, none of them had a free press, freedom of speech or a vote that would have prevented the despotic rulers to come into power
> 
> If you have a strong first amendment, you have no need for a second
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? you cant be serious.   If you are correct that there is no proof armed populations would have protected themselves from slaughter and genocide,  than why is it that all of those cases occurred after the populations were disarmed?  Why didnt those things happen while the populations were still armed?  It had to be after and the proof is pretty self evident unless you happen to be an attorney, then you might work some way around it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure that the Armenian peasants and shepherds had a lot of guns confiscated. Maybe 10 or 11, anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know this how?  Let me ask you this, if you are right in your belief, why would they have needed to ban guns in the first place?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, there was this little dust up going on, which was later referred to as WWI, in which all of the various ethnic cultures under domination of the Turks were trying to overthrow the Turks. You must have heard about it. It was in all the papers....
> 
> Private ownership of guns in that region was almost unheard of at the time. They were lucky if they could afford a dagger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain how things could have been any worse for the Armenians when the Turks went marching through their streets going door to door and the Armenians were armed. If anything, perhaps a few more families would have escaped. I'm sure most of them were taken by surprise.
> 
> Please someone name a genocide taken against a civilian population by its own gov. when that population was armed.  It hasnt happened yet but on the flip side....  well, the facts are what they are
> 
> The Armenian Genocide of 1915
> 
> 
> *World War I Begins and the Genocide Follows*
> The Ottoman Empire allied with Germany and Austria-Hungary in World War I. Fearing that Armenians would side with Russia, a Christian nation, the Turks disarmed the Armenian population. When the Russians handed the Turks a crushing defeat at the battle of Sarikemish in the Caucuses, the Turks accused the Armenians of fighting for the Russians and blamed them for the loss. In response, the Young Turks ordered the execution or deportation of the Armenian population. The genocide began on April 24, 1915, when the Turkish government arrested and executed about 300 intellectuals. Turks went door to door, rounding up male Armenians. They shot and killed them. Women, children, and the elderly were sent on death marches through the Syrian desert to concentration camps. Hundreds died of thirst, starvation, and exposure along the way. Those who stopped to rest were shot. Many Armenian children were spared death, but were forced to convert to Islam and join Turkish families. The government passed legislation to confiscate Armenian property. As many as 2 million Armenians were living in the Ottoman Empire just before the outbreak of World War I. At the end of the genocide, there were just 388,000 Armenians remaining there.
Click to expand...


The Armenians were an impoverished people, in a land where ownership of a cow and a couple of sheep meant that you were a wealthy man. In 1915, guns and ammunition were luxury items, in this part of the world, for anyone who was not in the business of being a highwayman for a living. In this part of the world, armies had just barely advanced beyond swordsmen on horseback.


----------



## ding

Vandalshandle said:


> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? you cant be serious.   If you are correct that there is no proof armed populations would have protected themselves from slaughter and genocide,  than why is it that all of those cases occurred after the populations were disarmed?  Why didnt those things happen while the populations were still armed?  It had to be after and the proof is pretty self evident unless you happen to be an attorney, then you might work some way around it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure that the Armenian peasants and shepherds had a lot of guns confiscated. Maybe 10 or 11, anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know this how?  Let me ask you this, if you are right in your belief, why would they have needed to ban guns in the first place?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, there was this little dust up going on, which was later referred to as WWI, in which all of the various ethnic cultures under domination of the Turks were trying to overthrow the Turks. You must have heard about it. It was in all the papers....
> 
> Private ownership of guns in that region was almost unheard of at the time. They were lucky if they could afford a dagger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain how things could have been any worse for the Armenians when the Turks went marching through their streets going door to door and the Armenians were armed. If anything, perhaps a few more families would have escaped. I'm sure most of them were taken by surprise.
> 
> Please someone name a genocide taken against a civilian population by its own gov. when that population was armed.  It hasnt happened yet but on the flip side....  well, the facts are what they are
> 
> The Armenian Genocide of 1915
> 
> 
> *World War I Begins and the Genocide Follows*
> The Ottoman Empire allied with Germany and Austria-Hungary in World War I. Fearing that Armenians would side with Russia, a Christian nation, the Turks disarmed the Armenian population. When the Russians handed the Turks a crushing defeat at the battle of Sarikemish in the Caucuses, the Turks accused the Armenians of fighting for the Russians and blamed them for the loss. In response, the Young Turks ordered the execution or deportation of the Armenian population. The genocide began on April 24, 1915, when the Turkish government arrested and executed about 300 intellectuals. Turks went door to door, rounding up male Armenians. They shot and killed them. Women, children, and the elderly were sent on death marches through the Syrian desert to concentration camps. Hundreds died of thirst, starvation, and exposure along the way. Those who stopped to rest were shot. Many Armenian children were spared death, but were forced to convert to Islam and join Turkish families. The government passed legislation to confiscate Armenian property. As many as 2 million Armenians were living in the Ottoman Empire just before the outbreak of World War I. At the end of the genocide, there were just 388,000 Armenians remaining there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Armenians were an impoverished people, in a land where ownership of a cow and a couple of sheep meant that you were a wealthy man. In 1915, guns and ammunition were luxury items, in this part of the world, for anyone who was not in the business of being a highwayman for a living. In this part of the world, armies had just barely advanced beyond swordsmen on horseback.
Click to expand...

For the THIRD time, so why did they need to ban guns?  Don't be shy.  Don't be afraid to answer.  Just blurt it out.  You can do it.


----------



## rightwinger

ding said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are useless against a modern military force
> 
> The Government fears your vote more than your guns
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't they fear both?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would they fear your guns?
> 
> Other than when you gun nuts were assassinating anyone who you disagreed with?
> 
> You may kill some politicians, but the government carries on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are going in circles now.  I've explained this to you already.  So let's just move on to your logical conclusion.  Would you like to ban and confiscate guns to alleviate your irrational fears?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have 300 million guns out there. Too late to do anything about it
> 
> I just think that any gun owner that thinks he needs guns and ammo for the day when he has to fight our government is a fucking asshole
> Wouldn't you agree?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Call me an asshole then because I own several guns.  I have enough ammo to last me some time because gun control assholes keep causing supply disruptions. I also had to buy reloading supplies for the same reason.   It's the only way I can keep ammo for my COMPETITIVE shooting.
> 
> So basically you just want to vent off steam.  Good for you.  Vent away.  There's lot's of things I don't like either.
Click to expand...


Your fears that anyone is going to take away your guns because you shoot competitively shows you are a paranoid asshole

Your supply disruptions are caused by lunatics such as yourself...not the government


----------



## rightwinger

ding said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would they fear your guns?
> 
> Other than when you gun nuts were assassinating anyone who you disagreed with?
> 
> You may kill some politicians, but the government carries on
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You make this seem like a wide spread problem, assasinating people. You sure your not talking about Mexico?
> When was this?  And also, many of these mass shooters in recent years have been drugged up courtesy of Big Pharma's medical experiments on the American people, via anti- depressants etc
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You missed the America I grew up in where guns were used to solve political problems....
> 
> JFK, MLK, Bobby Kennedy, Ford, Reagan, John Lennon, Wallace
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I was there.  A little young for the 1st three.  So which guns would you like to ban?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am OK with the guns...I would like to ban the owners
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That doesn't surprise me at all.  Modern liberals are the closest thing we have to Nazis today.  If you could round up everyone you didn't like, I have no doubt you would.  Me?  I like diversity.  It stirs the pot of the conflict and confusion process.  That's how objective truth rises to the top.  Error can't stand, it eventually fails.  That's why I don't worry to much about assholes like you.  Eventually you will Darwinize yourself out of existence.  We are just one global thermal nuclear war away from the big cities getting killed off and the end of your stupid utopia fantasy.  Of course it could also be one of seven other scenarios that have you guys eating each other to survive.  Come on giant meteor 2016!
Click to expand...

Guns don't kill people...crazed owners do


----------



## ding

rightwinger said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't they fear both?
> 
> 
> 
> Why would they fear your guns?
> 
> Other than when you gun nuts were assassinating anyone who you disagreed with?
> 
> You may kill some politicians, but the government carries on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are going in circles now.  I've explained this to you already.  So let's just move on to your logical conclusion.  Would you like to ban and confiscate guns to alleviate your irrational fears?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have 300 million guns out there. Too late to do anything about it
> 
> I just think that any gun owner that thinks he needs guns and ammo for the day when he has to fight our government is a fucking asshole
> Wouldn't you agree?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Call me an asshole then because I own several guns.  I have enough ammo to last me some time because gun control assholes keep causing supply disruptions. I also had to buy reloading supplies for the same reason.   It's the only way I can keep ammo for my COMPETITIVE shooting.
> 
> So basically you just want to vent off steam.  Good for you.  Vent away.  There's lot's of things I don't like either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your fears that anyone is going to take away your guns because you shoot competitively shows you are a paranoid asshole
> 
> Your supply disruptions are caused by lunatics such as yourself...not the government
Click to expand...

Oh, I'm just a plain old asshole.  I know that already.  You are the paranoid asshole because you are worried about my guns.  Supplies were fine until the gun control assholes started beating their ridiculous war drums.


----------



## ding

rightwinger said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> You make this seem like a wide spread problem, assasinating people. You sure your not talking about Mexico?
> When was this?  And also, many of these mass shooters in recent years have been drugged up courtesy of Big Pharma's medical experiments on the American people, via anti- depressants etc
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You missed the America I grew up in where guns were used to solve political problems....
> 
> JFK, MLK, Bobby Kennedy, Ford, Reagan, John Lennon, Wallace
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I was there.  A little young for the 1st three.  So which guns would you like to ban?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am OK with the guns...I would like to ban the owners
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That doesn't surprise me at all.  Modern liberals are the closest thing we have to Nazis today.  If you could round up everyone you didn't like, I have no doubt you would.  Me?  I like diversity.  It stirs the pot of the conflict and confusion process.  That's how objective truth rises to the top.  Error can't stand, it eventually fails.  That's why I don't worry to much about assholes like you.  Eventually you will Darwinize yourself out of existence.  We are just one global thermal nuclear war away from the big cities getting killed off and the end of your stupid utopia fantasy.  Of course it could also be one of seven other scenarios that have you guys eating each other to survive.  Come on giant meteor 2016!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Guns don't kill people...crazed owners do
Click to expand...

Yes, that is absolutely true.  I am glad that has finally sunk in.  Good job, rightwinger, good job.


----------



## ding

rightwinger said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> You make this seem like a wide spread problem, assasinating people. You sure your not talking about Mexico?
> When was this?  And also, many of these mass shooters in recent years have been drugged up courtesy of Big Pharma's medical experiments on the American people, via anti- depressants etc
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You missed the America I grew up in where guns were used to solve political problems....
> 
> JFK, MLK, Bobby Kennedy, Ford, Reagan, John Lennon, Wallace
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I was there.  A little young for the 1st three.  So which guns would you like to ban?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am OK with the guns...I would like to ban the owners
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That doesn't surprise me at all.  Modern liberals are the closest thing we have to Nazis today.  If you could round up everyone you didn't like, I have no doubt you would.  Me?  I like diversity.  It stirs the pot of the conflict and confusion process.  That's how objective truth rises to the top.  Error can't stand, it eventually fails.  That's why I don't worry to much about assholes like you.  Eventually you will Darwinize yourself out of existence.  We are just one global thermal nuclear war away from the big cities getting killed off and the end of your stupid utopia fantasy.  Of course it could also be one of seven other scenarios that have you guys eating each other to survive.  Come on giant meteor 2016!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Guns don't kill people...crazed owners do
Click to expand...

I think I will make an establishment clause just for you.  I like teaching you about the Constitution.


----------



## rightwinger

ding said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would they fear your guns?
> 
> Other than when you gun nuts were assassinating anyone who you disagreed with?
> 
> You may kill some politicians, but the government carries on
> 
> 
> 
> We are going in circles now.  I've explained this to you already.  So let's just move on to your logical conclusion.  Would you like to ban and confiscate guns to alleviate your irrational fears?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have 300 million guns out there. Too late to do anything about it
> 
> I just think that any gun owner that thinks he needs guns and ammo for the day when he has to fight our government is a fucking asshole
> Wouldn't you agree?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Call me an asshole then because I own several guns.  I have enough ammo to last me some time because gun control assholes keep causing supply disruptions. I also had to buy reloading supplies for the same reason.   It's the only way I can keep ammo for my COMPETITIVE shooting.
> 
> So basically you just want to vent off steam.  Good for you.  Vent away.  There's lot's of things I don't like either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your fears that anyone is going to take away your guns because you shoot competitively shows you are a paranoid asshole
> 
> Your supply disruptions are caused by lunatics such as yourself...not the government
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, I'm just a plain old asshole.  I know that already.  You are the paranoid asshole because you are worried about my guns.  Supplies were fine until the gun control assholes started beating their ridiculous war drums.
Click to expand...

If you believe you need to stock up ammo because the government is going to take it away...you are a paranoid asshole


----------



## Vandalshandle

ding said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure that the Armenian peasants and shepherds had a lot of guns confiscated. Maybe 10 or 11, anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> You know this how?  Let me ask you this, if you are right in your belief, why would they have needed to ban guns in the first place?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, there was this little dust up going on, which was later referred to as WWI, in which all of the various ethnic cultures under domination of the Turks were trying to overthrow the Turks. You must have heard about it. It was in all the papers....
> 
> Private ownership of guns in that region was almost unheard of at the time. They were lucky if they could afford a dagger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain how things could have been any worse for the Armenians when the Turks went marching through their streets going door to door and the Armenians were armed. If anything, perhaps a few more families would have escaped. I'm sure most of them were taken by surprise.
> 
> Please someone name a genocide taken against a civilian population by its own gov. when that population was armed.  It hasnt happened yet but on the flip side....  well, the facts are what they are
> 
> The Armenian Genocide of 1915
> 
> 
> *World War I Begins and the Genocide Follows*
> The Ottoman Empire allied with Germany and Austria-Hungary in World War I. Fearing that Armenians would side with Russia, a Christian nation, the Turks disarmed the Armenian population. When the Russians handed the Turks a crushing defeat at the battle of Sarikemish in the Caucuses, the Turks accused the Armenians of fighting for the Russians and blamed them for the loss. In response, the Young Turks ordered the execution or deportation of the Armenian population. The genocide began on April 24, 1915, when the Turkish government arrested and executed about 300 intellectuals. Turks went door to door, rounding up male Armenians. They shot and killed them. Women, children, and the elderly were sent on death marches through the Syrian desert to concentration camps. Hundreds died of thirst, starvation, and exposure along the way. Those who stopped to rest were shot. Many Armenian children were spared death, but were forced to convert to Islam and join Turkish families. The government passed legislation to confiscate Armenian property. As many as 2 million Armenians were living in the Ottoman Empire just before the outbreak of World War I. At the end of the genocide, there were just 388,000 Armenians remaining there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Armenians were an impoverished people, in a land where ownership of a cow and a couple of sheep meant that you were a wealthy man. In 1915, guns and ammunition were luxury items, in this part of the world, for anyone who was not in the business of being a highwayman for a living. In this part of the world, armies had just barely advanced beyond swordsmen on horseback.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For the THIRD time, so why did they need to ban guns?  Don't be shy.  Don't be afraid to answer.  Just blurt it out.  You can do it.
Click to expand...


Sounds like something you would know about, not me. The only thing I have ever advocated banning were ammo cartridges so large that their only practical use was in assault weapons.


----------



## ding

Vandalshandle said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know this how?  Let me ask you this, if you are right in your belief, why would they have needed to ban guns in the first place?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, there was this little dust up going on, which was later referred to as WWI, in which all of the various ethnic cultures under domination of the Turks were trying to overthrow the Turks. You must have heard about it. It was in all the papers....
> 
> Private ownership of guns in that region was almost unheard of at the time. They were lucky if they could afford a dagger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain how things could have been any worse for the Armenians when the Turks went marching through their streets going door to door and the Armenians were armed. If anything, perhaps a few more families would have escaped. I'm sure most of them were taken by surprise.
> 
> Please someone name a genocide taken against a civilian population by its own gov. when that population was armed.  It hasnt happened yet but on the flip side....  well, the facts are what they are
> 
> The Armenian Genocide of 1915
> 
> 
> *World War I Begins and the Genocide Follows*
> The Ottoman Empire allied with Germany and Austria-Hungary in World War I. Fearing that Armenians would side with Russia, a Christian nation, the Turks disarmed the Armenian population. When the Russians handed the Turks a crushing defeat at the battle of Sarikemish in the Caucuses, the Turks accused the Armenians of fighting for the Russians and blamed them for the loss. In response, the Young Turks ordered the execution or deportation of the Armenian population. The genocide began on April 24, 1915, when the Turkish government arrested and executed about 300 intellectuals. Turks went door to door, rounding up male Armenians. They shot and killed them. Women, children, and the elderly were sent on death marches through the Syrian desert to concentration camps. Hundreds died of thirst, starvation, and exposure along the way. Those who stopped to rest were shot. Many Armenian children were spared death, but were forced to convert to Islam and join Turkish families. The government passed legislation to confiscate Armenian property. As many as 2 million Armenians were living in the Ottoman Empire just before the outbreak of World War I. At the end of the genocide, there were just 388,000 Armenians remaining there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Armenians were an impoverished people, in a land where ownership of a cow and a couple of sheep meant that you were a wealthy man. In 1915, guns and ammunition were luxury items, in this part of the world, for anyone who was not in the business of being a highwayman for a living. In this part of the world, armies had just barely advanced beyond swordsmen on horseback.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For the THIRD time, so why did they need to ban guns?  Don't be shy.  Don't be afraid to answer.  Just blurt it out.  You can do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like something you would know about, not me. The only thing I have ever advocated banning were ammo cartridges so large that their only practical use was in assault weapons.
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with the Armenians banning guns?  You said they had so few it didn't matter, right?  If that were true, why did they need to ban them?  Now do you understand?


----------



## ding

ding said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, there was this little dust up going on, which was later referred to as WWI, in which all of the various ethnic cultures under domination of the Turks were trying to overthrow the Turks. You must have heard about it. It was in all the papers....
> 
> Private ownership of guns in that region was almost unheard of at the time. They were lucky if they could afford a dagger.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain how things could have been any worse for the Armenians when the Turks went marching through their streets going door to door and the Armenians were armed. If anything, perhaps a few more families would have escaped. I'm sure most of them were taken by surprise.
> 
> Please someone name a genocide taken against a civilian population by its own gov. when that population was armed.  It hasnt happened yet but on the flip side....  well, the facts are what they are
> 
> The Armenian Genocide of 1915
> 
> 
> *World War I Begins and the Genocide Follows*
> The Ottoman Empire allied with Germany and Austria-Hungary in World War I. Fearing that Armenians would side with Russia, a Christian nation, the Turks disarmed the Armenian population. When the Russians handed the Turks a crushing defeat at the battle of Sarikemish in the Caucuses, the Turks accused the Armenians of fighting for the Russians and blamed them for the loss. In response, the Young Turks ordered the execution or deportation of the Armenian population. The genocide began on April 24, 1915, when the Turkish government arrested and executed about 300 intellectuals. Turks went door to door, rounding up male Armenians. They shot and killed them. Women, children, and the elderly were sent on death marches through the Syrian desert to concentration camps. Hundreds died of thirst, starvation, and exposure along the way. Those who stopped to rest were shot. Many Armenian children were spared death, but were forced to convert to Islam and join Turkish families. The government passed legislation to confiscate Armenian property. As many as 2 million Armenians were living in the Ottoman Empire just before the outbreak of World War I. At the end of the genocide, there were just 388,000 Armenians remaining there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Armenians were an impoverished people, in a land where ownership of a cow and a couple of sheep meant that you were a wealthy man. In 1915, guns and ammunition were luxury items, in this part of the world, for anyone who was not in the business of being a highwayman for a living. In this part of the world, armies had just barely advanced beyond swordsmen on horseback.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For the THIRD time, so why did they need to ban guns?  Don't be shy.  Don't be afraid to answer.  Just blurt it out.  You can do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like something you would know about, not me. The only thing I have ever advocated banning were ammo cartridges so large that their only practical use was in assault weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does that have to do with the Armenians banning guns?  You said they had so few it didn't matter, right?  If that were true, why did they need to ban them?  Now do you understand?
Click to expand...

Now about you wanting to ban high capacity magazines, do I understand you correctly that you want the army and police to have high capacity magazines but the people who the 2nd Amendment was meant to protect shouldn't?  In what bizzaro world does that make any sense at all?


----------



## Vandalshandle

ding said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, there was this little dust up going on, which was later referred to as WWI, in which all of the various ethnic cultures under domination of the Turks were trying to overthrow the Turks. You must have heard about it. It was in all the papers....
> 
> Private ownership of guns in that region was almost unheard of at the time. They were lucky if they could afford a dagger.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain how things could have been any worse for the Armenians when the Turks went marching through their streets going door to door and the Armenians were armed. If anything, perhaps a few more families would have escaped. I'm sure most of them were taken by surprise.
> 
> Please someone name a genocide taken against a civilian population by its own gov. when that population was armed.  It hasnt happened yet but on the flip side....  well, the facts are what they are
> 
> The Armenian Genocide of 1915
> 
> 
> *World War I Begins and the Genocide Follows*
> The Ottoman Empire allied with Germany and Austria-Hungary in World War I. Fearing that Armenians would side with Russia, a Christian nation, the Turks disarmed the Armenian population. When the Russians handed the Turks a crushing defeat at the battle of Sarikemish in the Caucuses, the Turks accused the Armenians of fighting for the Russians and blamed them for the loss. In response, the Young Turks ordered the execution or deportation of the Armenian population. The genocide began on April 24, 1915, when the Turkish government arrested and executed about 300 intellectuals. Turks went door to door, rounding up male Armenians. They shot and killed them. Women, children, and the elderly were sent on death marches through the Syrian desert to concentration camps. Hundreds died of thirst, starvation, and exposure along the way. Those who stopped to rest were shot. Many Armenian children were spared death, but were forced to convert to Islam and join Turkish families. The government passed legislation to confiscate Armenian property. As many as 2 million Armenians were living in the Ottoman Empire just before the outbreak of World War I. At the end of the genocide, there were just 388,000 Armenians remaining there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Armenians were an impoverished people, in a land where ownership of a cow and a couple of sheep meant that you were a wealthy man. In 1915, guns and ammunition were luxury items, in this part of the world, for anyone who was not in the business of being a highwayman for a living. In this part of the world, armies had just barely advanced beyond swordsmen on horseback.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For the THIRD time, so why did they need to ban guns?  Don't be shy.  Don't be afraid to answer.  Just blurt it out.  You can do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like something you would know about, not me. The only thing I have ever advocated banning were ammo cartridges so large that their only practical use was in assault weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does that have to do with the Armenians banning guns?  You said they had so few it didn't matter, right?  If that were true, why did they need to ban them?  Now do you understand?
Click to expand...


See post 221.


----------



## Vandalshandle

ding said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain how things could have been any worse for the Armenians when the Turks went marching through their streets going door to door and the Armenians were armed. If anything, perhaps a few more families would have escaped. I'm sure most of them were taken by surprise.
> 
> Please someone name a genocide taken against a civilian population by its own gov. when that population was armed.  It hasnt happened yet but on the flip side....  well, the facts are what they are
> 
> The Armenian Genocide of 1915
> 
> 
> *World War I Begins and the Genocide Follows*
> The Ottoman Empire allied with Germany and Austria-Hungary in World War I. Fearing that Armenians would side with Russia, a Christian nation, the Turks disarmed the Armenian population. When the Russians handed the Turks a crushing defeat at the battle of Sarikemish in the Caucuses, the Turks accused the Armenians of fighting for the Russians and blamed them for the loss. In response, the Young Turks ordered the execution or deportation of the Armenian population. The genocide began on April 24, 1915, when the Turkish government arrested and executed about 300 intellectuals. Turks went door to door, rounding up male Armenians. They shot and killed them. Women, children, and the elderly were sent on death marches through the Syrian desert to concentration camps. Hundreds died of thirst, starvation, and exposure along the way. Those who stopped to rest were shot. Many Armenian children were spared death, but were forced to convert to Islam and join Turkish families. The government passed legislation to confiscate Armenian property. As many as 2 million Armenians were living in the Ottoman Empire just before the outbreak of World War I. At the end of the genocide, there were just 388,000 Armenians remaining there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Armenians were an impoverished people, in a land where ownership of a cow and a couple of sheep meant that you were a wealthy man. In 1915, guns and ammunition were luxury items, in this part of the world, for anyone who was not in the business of being a highwayman for a living. In this part of the world, armies had just barely advanced beyond swordsmen on horseback.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For the THIRD time, so why did they need to ban guns?  Don't be shy.  Don't be afraid to answer.  Just blurt it out.  You can do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like something you would know about, not me. The only thing I have ever advocated banning were ammo cartridges so large that their only practical use was in assault weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does that have to do with the Armenians banning guns?  You said they had so few it didn't matter, right?  If that were true, why did they need to ban them?  Now do you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now about you wanting to ban high capacity magazines, do I understand you correctly that you want the army and police to have high capacity magazines but the people who the 2nd Amendment was meant to protect shouldn't?  In what bizzaro world does that make any sense at all?
Click to expand...


Ding, if in your fantasy world, you are going to become an urban freedom fighter and overcome the combined army, navy and air force of the United States government, then you need to start saving up to buy your own BatTank, BatHelicopter, and BatGunboat.


----------



## ding

Vandalshandle said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain how things could have been any worse for the Armenians when the Turks went marching through their streets going door to door and the Armenians were armed. If anything, perhaps a few more families would have escaped. I'm sure most of them were taken by surprise.
> 
> Please someone name a genocide taken against a civilian population by its own gov. when that population was armed.  It hasnt happened yet but on the flip side....  well, the facts are what they are
> 
> The Armenian Genocide of 1915
> 
> 
> *World War I Begins and the Genocide Follows*
> The Ottoman Empire allied with Germany and Austria-Hungary in World War I. Fearing that Armenians would side with Russia, a Christian nation, the Turks disarmed the Armenian population. When the Russians handed the Turks a crushing defeat at the battle of Sarikemish in the Caucuses, the Turks accused the Armenians of fighting for the Russians and blamed them for the loss. In response, the Young Turks ordered the execution or deportation of the Armenian population. The genocide began on April 24, 1915, when the Turkish government arrested and executed about 300 intellectuals. Turks went door to door, rounding up male Armenians. They shot and killed them. Women, children, and the elderly were sent on death marches through the Syrian desert to concentration camps. Hundreds died of thirst, starvation, and exposure along the way. Those who stopped to rest were shot. Many Armenian children were spared death, but were forced to convert to Islam and join Turkish families. The government passed legislation to confiscate Armenian property. As many as 2 million Armenians were living in the Ottoman Empire just before the outbreak of World War I. At the end of the genocide, there were just 388,000 Armenians remaining there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Armenians were an impoverished people, in a land where ownership of a cow and a couple of sheep meant that you were a wealthy man. In 1915, guns and ammunition were luxury items, in this part of the world, for anyone who was not in the business of being a highwayman for a living. In this part of the world, armies had just barely advanced beyond swordsmen on horseback.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For the THIRD time, so why did they need to ban guns?  Don't be shy.  Don't be afraid to answer.  Just blurt it out.  You can do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like something you would know about, not me. The only thing I have ever advocated banning were ammo cartridges so large that their only practical use was in assault weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does that have to do with the Armenians banning guns?  You said they had so few it didn't matter, right?  If that were true, why did they need to ban them?  Now do you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See post 221.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know.  It was that post which caused me to ask you the question if there were so few guns why did they need to ban them.  A question you have still not answered.  So why did they need to ban them?


----------



## ding

Vandalshandle said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Armenians were an impoverished people, in a land where ownership of a cow and a couple of sheep meant that you were a wealthy man. In 1915, guns and ammunition were luxury items, in this part of the world, for anyone who was not in the business of being a highwayman for a living. In this part of the world, armies had just barely advanced beyond swordsmen on horseback.
> 
> 
> 
> For the THIRD time, so why did they need to ban guns?  Don't be shy.  Don't be afraid to answer.  Just blurt it out.  You can do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like something you would know about, not me. The only thing I have ever advocated banning were ammo cartridges so large that their only practical use was in assault weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does that have to do with the Armenians banning guns?  You said they had so few it didn't matter, right?  If that were true, why did they need to ban them?  Now do you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now about you wanting to ban high capacity magazines, do I understand you correctly that you want the army and police to have high capacity magazines but the people who the 2nd Amendment was meant to protect shouldn't?  In what bizzaro world does that make any sense at all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ding, if in your fantasy world, you are going to become an urban freedom fighter and overcome the combined army, navy and air force of the United States government, then you need to start saving up to buy your own BatTank, BatHelicopter, and BatGunboat.
Click to expand...

An armed populace is a deterrent against a tyrannical government and it has worked.

deterrent; a thing that discourages or is intended to discourage someone from doing something.


----------



## regent

Perhaps the first guns used against Americans was Washington's militia,when the government put down the Whiskey Rebellion.


----------



## Vandalshandle

ding said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Armenians were an impoverished people, in a land where ownership of a cow and a couple of sheep meant that you were a wealthy man. In 1915, guns and ammunition were luxury items, in this part of the world, for anyone who was not in the business of being a highwayman for a living. In this part of the world, armies had just barely advanced beyond swordsmen on horseback.
> 
> 
> 
> For the THIRD time, so why did they need to ban guns?  Don't be shy.  Don't be afraid to answer.  Just blurt it out.  You can do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like something you would know about, not me. The only thing I have ever advocated banning were ammo cartridges so large that their only practical use was in assault weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does that have to do with the Armenians banning guns?  You said they had so few it didn't matter, right?  If that were true, why did they need to ban them?  Now do you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See post 221.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, I know.  It was that post which caused me to ask you the question if there were so few guns why did they need to ban them.  A question you have still not answered.  So why did they need to ban them?
Click to expand...

I see no particular need to answer it twice.


----------



## Vandalshandle

ding said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the THIRD time, so why did they need to ban guns?  Don't be shy.  Don't be afraid to answer.  Just blurt it out.  You can do it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like something you would know about, not me. The only thing I have ever advocated banning were ammo cartridges so large that their only practical use was in assault weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does that have to do with the Armenians banning guns?  You said they had so few it didn't matter, right?  If that were true, why did they need to ban them?  Now do you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now about you wanting to ban high capacity magazines, do I understand you correctly that you want the army and police to have high capacity magazines but the people who the 2nd Amendment was meant to protect shouldn't?  In what bizzaro world does that make any sense at all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ding, if in your fantasy world, you are going to become an urban freedom fighter and overcome the combined army, navy and air force of the United States government, then you need to start saving up to buy your own BatTank, BatHelicopter, and BatGunboat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An armed populace is a deterrent against a tyrannical government and it has worked.
> 
> deterrent; a thing that discourages or is intended to discourage someone from doing something.
Click to expand...


The government is terrified of you and your 1911.....


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

ding said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would they fear your guns?
> 
> Other than when you gun nuts were assassinating anyone who you disagreed with?
> 
> You may kill some politicians, but the government carries on
> 
> 
> 
> We are going in circles now.  I've explained this to you already.  So let's just move on to your logical conclusion.  Would you like to ban and confiscate guns to alleviate your irrational fears?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have 300 million guns out there. Too late to do anything about it
> 
> I just think that any gun owner that thinks he needs guns and ammo for the day when he has to fight our government is a fucking asshole
> Wouldn't you agree?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Call me an asshole then because I own several guns.  I have enough ammo to last me some time because gun control assholes keep causing supply disruptions. I also had to buy reloading supplies for the same reason.   It's the only way I can keep ammo for my COMPETITIVE shooting.
> 
> So basically you just want to vent off steam.  Good for you.  Vent away.  There's lot's of things I don't like either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your fears that anyone is going to take away your guns because you shoot competitively shows you are a paranoid asshole
> 
> Your supply disruptions are caused by lunatics such as yourself...not the government
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, I'm just a plain old asshole.  I know that already.  You are the paranoid asshole because you are worried about my guns.  Supplies were fine until the gun control assholes started beating their ridiculous war drums.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

Shortages and price-hikes are the result of morons who buy into ridiculous lies about ‘the government.’

No one wants to take your guns or restrict access to ammunition, the notion is ignorant idiocy.

As you and other righting nitwits hoard ammunition and buy guns you incorrectly believe are going to be ‘banned,’ you needlessly make that ammunition more expensive and harder to find for the rest of us; the same is true with regard to firearms, I might be interested in buying a particular gun only to find it always out of stock, or so insanely over-priced as to not be affordable.

Indeed, your inane hording and panic-buying of firearms has done more to keep guns out of the hands of potential gunowners than any ‘gun control’ measure.


----------



## Yarddog

Vandalshandle said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the THIRD time, so why did they need to ban guns?  Don't be shy.  Don't be afraid to answer.  Just blurt it out.  You can do it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like something you would know about, not me. The only thing I have ever advocated banning were ammo cartridges so large that their only practical use was in assault weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does that have to do with the Armenians banning guns?  You said they had so few it didn't matter, right?  If that were true, why did they need to ban them?  Now do you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See post 221.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, I know.  It was that post which caused me to ask you the question if there were so few guns why did they need to ban them.  A question you have still not answered.  So why did they need to ban them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see no particular need to answer it twice.
Click to expand...


The Turk government banned guns so that when they went door to door killing civilians they would meet miniumum resistance. End of story.   Of course our government wont do something like that, but who knows what we will have in 50 years or 100 from now. preserving second amendment rights today is preserving second amendment rights for future generations. remember , once something is gone it is much harder to get it back.


----------



## frigidweirdo

ding said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Blacks committed 4 times the per capita murders with guns than the national average.  If blacks had just committed murders at the rate of the national average, our gun death rate would have dropped from 2.67 murders per 100,000 persons to 1.76 murders per 100,000 persons.
> 
> So when liberals talk about taking guns away, that is code for taking guns away from blacks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then again blacks are far more likely to be in poverty too. White people in poverty are more likely to use guns in crime, as are black people. But then it's easy to just take one statistic and float it around without looking at the whole situation, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My goodness.  One statistic.   You need to go back and review the FBI's data, bro.  It's that way across all of the violent crime types and has been that way ever since the FBI started compiling the data.  The bottom line is that American's are not violent.  Certain segments of America is, and since you are using our total statistics to inform your opinion, your opinion is being skewed by the segment which is skewing the data.  Like I said, rather than worrying about guns, you just might to want to deal with the real root cause of the problem.
> 
> Blaming poverty is an excuse.
Click to expand...


No, blaming poverty isn't an excuse. I've actually gone and broken down violent crime statistics by areas of a city based on poverty levels and found that actually poverty levels and crime often go hand in hand. 

The problem is getting those detailed statistics. The stats I used were from London because I could get all of these statistics, for poverty levels, for income levels, for numbers of black people, Asian people, white people etc, and I could get crime statistics for each of this, at the local level, not at city level. 

You have not used any evidence at all. You're just throwing things at me and hoping they stick.


----------



## frigidweirdo

ding said:


>



And having conveniently ignored other genocides, like, oh, the US genocide against the native peoples, where the Native peoples had guns and the US had even more guns. 

There have been plenty of genocides out there, picking and choosing what you want and then presenting it is poor logic.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Yarddog said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like something you would know about, not me. The only thing I have ever advocated banning were ammo cartridges so large that their only practical use was in assault weapons.
> 
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with the Armenians banning guns?  You said they had so few it didn't matter, right?  If that were true, why did they need to ban them?  Now do you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See post 221.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, I know.  It was that post which caused me to ask you the question if there were so few guns why did they need to ban them.  A question you have still not answered.  So why did they need to ban them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see no particular need to answer it twice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Turk government banned guns so that when they went door to door killing civilians they would meet miniumum resistance. End of story.   Of course our government wont do something like that, but who knows what we will have in 50 years or 100 from now. preserving second amendment rights today is preserving second amendment rights for future generations. remember , once something is gone it is much harder to get it back.
Click to expand...


The problem I have with your comments is that you're so willing to keep your guns, but so unwilling to vote properly in order to not have a govt that acts like this. It's shocking.


----------



## Yarddog

frigidweirdo said:


> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with the Armenians banning guns?  You said they had so few it didn't matter, right?  If that were true, why did they need to ban them?  Now do you understand?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See post 221.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, I know.  It was that post which caused me to ask you the question if there were so few guns why did they need to ban them.  A question you have still not answered.  So why did they need to ban them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see no particular need to answer it twice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Turk government banned guns so that when they went door to door killing civilians they would meet miniumum resistance. End of story.   Of course our government wont do something like that, but who knows what we will have in 50 years or 100 from now. preserving second amendment rights today is preserving second amendment rights for future generations. remember , once something is gone it is much harder to get it back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem I have with your comments is that you're so willing to keep your guns, but so unwilling to vote properly in order to not have a govt that acts like this. It's shocking.
Click to expand...



Really?  which candidate is calling for disarming US citizens and rounding them up?


----------



## Yarddog

frigidweirdo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And having conveniently ignored other genocides, like, oh, the US genocide against the native peoples, where the Native peoples had guns and the US had even more guns.
> 
> There have been plenty of genocides out there, picking and choosing what you want and then presenting it is poor logic.
Click to expand...



Actually the US government had a big campaign to disarm native Americans. Can you guess why?   but armed resistance by western tribes did manage to get them the FEW concessions they did get. They forced them out of the more powerful US government by their resistance. Unfortunantly , after they were put on reservations they were
basicaly lied to and screwed over.   The wounded knee massacre happened during one of those dissarmament forays.  Also, a very high percentage died from disease.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Yarddog said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like something you would know about, not me. The only thing I have ever advocated banning were ammo cartridges so large that their only practical use was in assault weapons.
> 
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with the Armenians banning guns?  You said they had so few it didn't matter, right?  If that were true, why did they need to ban them?  Now do you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See post 221.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, I know.  It was that post which caused me to ask you the question if there were so few guns why did they need to ban them.  A question you have still not answered.  So why did they need to ban them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see no particular need to answer it twice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Turk government banned guns so that when they went door to door killing civilians they would meet miniumum resistance. End of story.   Of course our government wont do something like that, but who knows what we will have in 50 years or 100 from now. preserving second amendment rights today is preserving second amendment rights for future generations. remember , once something is gone it is much harder to get it back.
Click to expand...


A gun, to an Armenian in 1915, would have cost about the same as a home and land to graze goats.

But, go ahead and visualize the long line of Armenia's handing in their Springfield rifles and Colt 1911's as they were herded to slaughter, if it makes you feel better.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Yarddog said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> See post 221.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I know.  It was that post which caused me to ask you the question if there were so few guns why did they need to ban them.  A question you have still not answered.  So why did they need to ban them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see no particular need to answer it twice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Turk government banned guns so that when they went door to door killing civilians they would meet miniumum resistance. End of story.   Of course our government wont do something like that, but who knows what we will have in 50 years or 100 from now. preserving second amendment rights today is preserving second amendment rights for future generations. remember , once something is gone it is much harder to get it back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem I have with your comments is that you're so willing to keep your guns, but so unwilling to vote properly in order to not have a govt that acts like this. It's shocking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  which candidate is calling for disarming US citizens and rounding them up?
Click to expand...


Neither of them, but then again I'm not sure what your comment has to do with mine.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Yarddog said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And having conveniently ignored other genocides, like, oh, the US genocide against the native peoples, where the Native peoples had guns and the US had even more guns.
> 
> There have been plenty of genocides out there, picking and choosing what you want and then presenting it is poor logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the US government had a big campaign to disarm native Americans. Can you guess why?   but armed resistance by western tribes did manage to get them the FEW concessions they did get. They forced them out of the more powerful US government by their resistance. Unfortunantly , after they were put on reservations they were
> basicaly lied to and screwed over.   The wounded knee massacre happened during one of those dissarmament forays.  Also, a very high percentage died from disease.
Click to expand...


Of course, they were basically at war, surely the US tried to disarm anyone they were at war with. 

Armed resistance got them what? A few concessions, that's saying that no one gets concessions unless they have guns? Rubbish. 

Your argument is still as weak as water.


----------



## Skull Pilot

rightwinger said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol,no.  I wish I was though.
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are free to disagree with the Founding Fathers, comrade, but not free to change the Constitution.  I have already provided the proof that they were correct.  They had their own proof back in their day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if you look at the "proof" during their own day, they drew the wrong conclusion
> 
> While there is a romantic vision of the Minutemen during the Revolutionary War, Militias were not effective in fighting regular British troops. They were best known for running away. It was not until the Continental Army was trained into a fighting force that we started to make progress. It was the entrance of the French with their experience and navy that finally won the war.
> 
> After the war our nation was bankrupt. We thought we could get away without having a standing army......our founders were wrong
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They didn't draw their conclusion from fighting the British, you moron.  They drew it from the history of Europe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh...I just gotta see your link on that one
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was in the OP, you idiot.
> 
> _"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you imagine how naïve a time that was?...what romantic bullshit
> 
> A time when if you owned a musket, you thought you were on par with a standing Army
> Even then, peasants were no match for a trained, properly led fighting force
Click to expand...

civilians were really never on par with a standing army.


----------



## Skull Pilot

rightwinger said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol,no.  I wish I was though.
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> They didn't draw their conclusion from fighting the British, you moron.  They drew it from the history of Europe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh...I just gotta see your link on that one
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was in the OP, you idiot.
> 
> _"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you imagine how naïve a time that was?...what romantic bullshit
> 
> A time when if you owned a musket, you thought you were on par with a standing Army
> Even then, peasants were no match for a trained, properly led fighting force
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear rightwinger the same holds true today, where people want their right to defense,
> regardless how much greater armed forces they may be up against.
> 
> Also, at a time where British were trying to disarm the populace,
> it makes sense to me the people wanted both personal right to keep and bear arms,
> and they wanted militias if they could support them.
> 
> This isn't either or. It's wanting to preserve right to all of the above.
> 
> What we also need is equal right to legal defense, and laws against abusing this to violate the laws.
> Otherwise, as with guns, we aren't enforcing the agreement that gun rights are to enforce laws, not violate them.
> And the same is happening with legal and judicial abuse, where the right to defense
> gets abused to violate instead of enforce laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Emily
> 
> Anyone who thinks they need their gun to fight off the government is not a real American
> 
> If I am not satisfied with my government, I vote them out of office and use my freedom of speech to voice my displeasure. That is the glory of our Constitution and has kept government in check for 235 years
Click to expand...

and once again very few people who actually own guns want to fight the government

They want to own firearms because they want the most effective way to defend themselves, their family and their homes.

The government cannot and at times will not protect you


----------



## Boss

emilynghiem said:


> It's not the gun but the choice they want.
> Like people who fight for abortion rights, don't all want abortions, they want the
> choice not to have govt interfere that personally with them. Similar with gun rights.
> They don't trust govt to regulate those, just like not trusting govt to regulate abortion rights.
> 
> It symbolizes a line in the sand where govt cannot tell you to give up your free choice.



I totally disagree with this on a fundamental basis. So-called "abortion rights" have nothing in common with our 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. The Constitution states very specifically that we have the inalienable right to own firearms. Nowhere does it say we have an inalienable right to kill the unborn. That is a manufactured right that doesn't exist and is not inalienable at all. 

Our 2nd Amendment right is NOT about choice, it's about an inalienable right we have which can't be removed by man. We've seen all the usual arguments in this thread over what the framers meant about this or that but the bottom line remains, this was the #2 listed right in our bill of rights for a reason. It is fundamentally and vitally important to our freedom. Abortion is not and never has been. 

Now, let's cut to the chase here... The REASON you have people arguing against the 2nd Amendment is because they are promoting a Socialist idea straight out of Marx's Communist Manifesto. Oh, I know the eyes are rolling... here he goes again... but this is the truth. Karl Marx spoke extensively of how it was essential to disarm the populace in order for the central authority to control the people more effectively. And if you listen to the leftists here, you see that they certainly understand this by the way they argue. They constantly attack the notion that the people would ever rise up and overthrow a tyrannic government as silly and ridiculous. 

We don't need to argue that point with them, or any point, to be honest. It does not matter what the reasons are for our 2nd Amendment. It exists and it's inalienable. That's really the beginning and ending of the debate. Any arguments beyond that are superfluous. Now, as citizens of our respective states, we can outline parameters or rules for how our 2A rights are regulated. That is also a fundamental right we have to self-govern.


----------



## ding

Vandalshandle said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the THIRD time, so why did they need to ban guns?  Don't be shy.  Don't be afraid to answer.  Just blurt it out.  You can do it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like something you would know about, not me. The only thing I have ever advocated banning were ammo cartridges so large that their only practical use was in assault weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does that have to do with the Armenians banning guns?  You said they had so few it didn't matter, right?  If that were true, why did they need to ban them?  Now do you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See post 221.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, I know.  It was that post which caused me to ask you the question if there were so few guns why did they need to ban them.  A question you have still not answered.  So why did they need to ban them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see no particular need to answer it twice.
Click to expand...

You didn't answer it once.


----------



## Skull Pilot

rightwinger said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> You make this seem like a wide spread problem, assasinating people. You sure your not talking about Mexico?
> When was this?  And also, many of these mass shooters in recent years have been drugged up courtesy of Big Pharma's medical experiments on the American people, via anti- depressants etc
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You missed the America I grew up in where guns were used to solve political problems....
> 
> JFK, MLK, Bobby Kennedy, Ford, Reagan, John Lennon, Wallace
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I was there.  A little young for the 1st three.  So which guns would you like to ban?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am OK with the guns...I would like to ban the owners
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That doesn't surprise me at all.  Modern liberals are the closest thing we have to Nazis today.  If you could round up everyone you didn't like, I have no doubt you would.  Me?  I like diversity.  It stirs the pot of the conflict and confusion process.  That's how objective truth rises to the top.  Error can't stand, it eventually fails.  That's why I don't worry to much about assholes like you.  Eventually you will Darwinize yourself out of existence.  We are just one global thermal nuclear war away from the big cities getting killed off and the end of your stupid utopia fantasy.  Of course it could also be one of seven other scenarios that have you guys eating each other to survive.  Come on giant meteor 2016!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Guns don't kill people...crazed owners do
Click to expand...


most people who kill with guns are not legally entitled to own one

In 2001, the 68 largest cities accounted for 42% of reported homicides which house only 18% of the U.S. population. (Homicide figures obtained from 2001 FBI Uniform Crime Report, p. 201.)

Volokh summarizes prior arrest data for homicide offenders from the report, _Felony Defendants in Large Urban Counties, 1998_:


81% of all homicide defendants have at least one arrest on their record.

66% have two or more arrests.

67% have at least one felony arrest.

56% have two or more felony arrests.

70% have at least one conviction.

54% have at least one felony conviction.
GunCite: Gun Control - Gun Homicides


----------



## ding

Vandalshandle said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like something you would know about, not me. The only thing I have ever advocated banning were ammo cartridges so large that their only practical use was in assault weapons.
> 
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with the Armenians banning guns?  You said they had so few it didn't matter, right?  If that were true, why did they need to ban them?  Now do you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now about you wanting to ban high capacity magazines, do I understand you correctly that you want the army and police to have high capacity magazines but the people who the 2nd Amendment was meant to protect shouldn't?  In what bizzaro world does that make any sense at all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ding, if in your fantasy world, you are going to become an urban freedom fighter and overcome the combined army, navy and air force of the United States government, then you need to start saving up to buy your own BatTank, BatHelicopter, and BatGunboat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An armed populace is a deterrent against a tyrannical government and it has worked.
> 
> deterrent; a thing that discourages or is intended to discourage someone from doing something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The government is terrified of you and your 1911.....
Click to expand...

To be fair... it does have pearl handles.  Besides I like MY chance better with a gun rather than without a gun.  Guns aren't for everyone.  A gun may not be for you.  Some women and effeminate men don't have the hand strength to work the slide.   Some women and effeminate men are scared of loud noises.  At the end of the day, I fully respect your right to go into battle unarmed and unable to protect any of your loved ones.  I won't look at you as any less of a man.  I promise.


----------



## ding

frigidweirdo said:


> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And having conveniently ignored other genocides, like, oh, the US genocide against the native peoples, where the Native peoples had guns and the US had even more guns.
> 
> There have been plenty of genocides out there, picking and choosing what you want and then presenting it is poor logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the US government had a big campaign to disarm native Americans. Can you guess why?   but armed resistance by western tribes did manage to get them the FEW concessions they did get. They forced them out of the more powerful US government by their resistance. Unfortunantly , after they were put on reservations they were
> basicaly lied to and screwed over.   The wounded knee massacre happened during one of those dissarmament forays.  Also, a very high percentage died from disease.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course, they were basically at war, surely the US tried to disarm anyone they were at war with.
> 
> Armed resistance got them what? A few concessions, that's saying that no one gets concessions unless they have guns? Rubbish.
> 
> Your argument is still as weak as water.
Click to expand...

Well... don't own a gun then.  How's that?  Are we good?


----------



## Skull Pilot

Vandalshandle said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know this how?  Let me ask you this, if you are right in your belief, why would they have needed to ban guns in the first place?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, there was this little dust up going on, which was later referred to as WWI, in which all of the various ethnic cultures under domination of the Turks were trying to overthrow the Turks. You must have heard about it. It was in all the papers....
> 
> Private ownership of guns in that region was almost unheard of at the time. They were lucky if they could afford a dagger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain how things could have been any worse for the Armenians when the Turks went marching through their streets going door to door and the Armenians were armed. If anything, perhaps a few more families would have escaped. I'm sure most of them were taken by surprise.
> 
> Please someone name a genocide taken against a civilian population by its own gov. when that population was armed.  It hasnt happened yet but on the flip side....  well, the facts are what they are
> 
> The Armenian Genocide of 1915
> 
> 
> *World War I Begins and the Genocide Follows*
> The Ottoman Empire allied with Germany and Austria-Hungary in World War I. Fearing that Armenians would side with Russia, a Christian nation, the Turks disarmed the Armenian population. When the Russians handed the Turks a crushing defeat at the battle of Sarikemish in the Caucuses, the Turks accused the Armenians of fighting for the Russians and blamed them for the loss. In response, the Young Turks ordered the execution or deportation of the Armenian population. The genocide began on April 24, 1915, when the Turkish government arrested and executed about 300 intellectuals. Turks went door to door, rounding up male Armenians. They shot and killed them. Women, children, and the elderly were sent on death marches through the Syrian desert to concentration camps. Hundreds died of thirst, starvation, and exposure along the way. Those who stopped to rest were shot. Many Armenian children were spared death, but were forced to convert to Islam and join Turkish families. The government passed legislation to confiscate Armenian property. As many as 2 million Armenians were living in the Ottoman Empire just before the outbreak of World War I. At the end of the genocide, there were just 388,000 Armenians remaining there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Armenians were an impoverished people, in a land where ownership of a cow and a couple of sheep meant that you were a wealthy man. In 1915, guns and ammunition were luxury items, in this part of the world, for anyone who was not in the business of being a highwayman for a living. In this part of the world, armies had just barely advanced beyond swordsmen on horseback.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For the THIRD time, so why did they need to ban guns?  Don't be shy.  Don't be afraid to answer.  Just blurt it out.  You can do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like something you would know about, not me. The only thing I have ever advocated banning were ammo cartridges so large that their only practical use was in assault weapons.
Click to expand...


The public cannot get "assault" weapons

The only thing civilians can buy are semiautomatic weapons which have been around since the mid 1800's.

Magazine size is a red herring

Just because my 9mm can hold a 17 round magazine doesn't mean I am going to shoot 17 people
Just because a person had a 30 round magazine for a semiauto rifle doesn't mean he is going to shoot up a school


----------



## ding

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are going in circles now.  I've explained this to you already.  So let's just move on to your logical conclusion.  Would you like to ban and confiscate guns to alleviate your irrational fears?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have 300 million guns out there. Too late to do anything about it
> 
> I just think that any gun owner that thinks he needs guns and ammo for the day when he has to fight our government is a fucking asshole
> Wouldn't you agree?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Call me an asshole then because I own several guns.  I have enough ammo to last me some time because gun control assholes keep causing supply disruptions. I also had to buy reloading supplies for the same reason.   It's the only way I can keep ammo for my COMPETITIVE shooting.
> 
> So basically you just want to vent off steam.  Good for you.  Vent away.  There's lot's of things I don't like either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your fears that anyone is going to take away your guns because you shoot competitively shows you are a paranoid asshole
> 
> Your supply disruptions are caused by lunatics such as yourself...not the government
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, I'm just a plain old asshole.  I know that already.  You are the paranoid asshole because you are worried about my guns.  Supplies were fine until the gun control assholes started beating their ridiculous war drums.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Shortages and price-hikes are the result of morons who buy into ridiculous lies about ‘the government.’
> 
> No one wants to take your guns or restrict access to ammunition, the notion is ignorant idiocy.
> 
> As you and other righting nitwits hoard ammunition and buy guns you incorrectly believe are going to be ‘banned,’ you needlessly make that ammunition more expensive and harder to find for the rest of us; the same is true with regard to firearms, I might be interested in buying a particular gun only to find it always out of stock, or so insanely over-priced as to not be affordable.
> 
> Indeed, your inane hording and panic-buying of firearms has done more to keep guns out of the hands of potential gunowners than any ‘gun control’ measure.
Click to expand...

As I look at the vitriol from trolls, just in this thread alone, against the 2nd Amendment, it does not seem to me like there is no risk of idiots wanting to undue our 2nd Amendment rights.


----------



## ding

frigidweirdo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Blacks committed 4 times the per capita murders with guns than the national average.  If blacks had just committed murders at the rate of the national average, our gun death rate would have dropped from 2.67 murders per 100,000 persons to 1.76 murders per 100,000 persons.
> 
> So when liberals talk about taking guns away, that is code for taking guns away from blacks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then again blacks are far more likely to be in poverty too. White people in poverty are more likely to use guns in crime, as are black people. But then it's easy to just take one statistic and float it around without looking at the whole situation, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My goodness.  One statistic.   You need to go back and review the FBI's data, bro.  It's that way across all of the violent crime types and has been that way ever since the FBI started compiling the data.  The bottom line is that American's are not violent.  Certain segments of America is, and since you are using our total statistics to inform your opinion, your opinion is being skewed by the segment which is skewing the data.  Like I said, rather than worrying about guns, you just might to want to deal with the real root cause of the problem.
> 
> Blaming poverty is an excuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, blaming poverty isn't an excuse. I've actually gone and broken down violent crime statistics by areas of a city based on poverty levels and found that actually poverty levels and crime often go hand in hand.
> 
> The problem is getting those detailed statistics. The stats I used were from London because I could get all of these statistics, for poverty levels, for income levels, for numbers of black people, Asian people, white people etc, and I could get crime statistics for each of this, at the local level, not at city level.
> 
> You have not used any evidence at all. You're just throwing things at me and hoping they stick.
Click to expand...

It sure sounds like an excuse, amigo.  You are literally saying that because someone is poor they have a propensity to rape, assault or murder people?  Get real.  There are tons of crime statistic from the FBI and they all show the same thing.  For every type of violent crime, blacks are skewing the numbers.  If we remove that segment, then the per capita numbers drop significantly.  I have a correlation for you... voting for Democrats leads to higher crime rates.


----------



## ding

frigidweirdo said:


> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And having conveniently ignored other genocides, like, oh, the US genocide against the native peoples, where the Native peoples had guns and the US had even more guns.
> 
> There have been plenty of genocides out there, picking and choosing what you want and then presenting it is poor logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the US government had a big campaign to disarm native Americans. Can you guess why?   but armed resistance by western tribes did manage to get them the FEW concessions they did get. They forced them out of the more powerful US government by their resistance. Unfortunantly , after they were put on reservations they were
> basicaly lied to and screwed over.   The wounded knee massacre happened during one of those dissarmament forays.  Also, a very high percentage died from disease.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course, they were basically at war, surely the US tried to disarm anyone they were at war with.
> 
> Armed resistance got them what? A few concessions, that's saying that no one gets concessions unless they have guns? Rubbish.
> 
> Your argument is still as weak as water.
Click to expand...

You mean YOU believe the founding fathers argument is weaker than water.  I disagree.


----------



## rightwinger

ding said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain how things could have been any worse for the Armenians when the Turks went marching through their streets going door to door and the Armenians were armed. If anything, perhaps a few more families would have escaped. I'm sure most of them were taken by surprise.
> 
> Please someone name a genocide taken against a civilian population by its own gov. when that population was armed.  It hasnt happened yet but on the flip side....  well, the facts are what they are
> 
> The Armenian Genocide of 1915
> 
> 
> *World War I Begins and the Genocide Follows*
> The Ottoman Empire allied with Germany and Austria-Hungary in World War I. Fearing that Armenians would side with Russia, a Christian nation, the Turks disarmed the Armenian population. When the Russians handed the Turks a crushing defeat at the battle of Sarikemish in the Caucuses, the Turks accused the Armenians of fighting for the Russians and blamed them for the loss. In response, the Young Turks ordered the execution or deportation of the Armenian population. The genocide began on April 24, 1915, when the Turkish government arrested and executed about 300 intellectuals. Turks went door to door, rounding up male Armenians. They shot and killed them. Women, children, and the elderly were sent on death marches through the Syrian desert to concentration camps. Hundreds died of thirst, starvation, and exposure along the way. Those who stopped to rest were shot. Many Armenian children were spared death, but were forced to convert to Islam and join Turkish families. The government passed legislation to confiscate Armenian property. As many as 2 million Armenians were living in the Ottoman Empire just before the outbreak of World War I. At the end of the genocide, there were just 388,000 Armenians remaining there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Armenians were an impoverished people, in a land where ownership of a cow and a couple of sheep meant that you were a wealthy man. In 1915, guns and ammunition were luxury items, in this part of the world, for anyone who was not in the business of being a highwayman for a living. In this part of the world, armies had just barely advanced beyond swordsmen on horseback.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For the THIRD time, so why did they need to ban guns?  Don't be shy.  Don't be afraid to answer.  Just blurt it out.  You can do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like something you would know about, not me. The only thing I have ever advocated banning were ammo cartridges so large that their only practical use was in assault weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does that have to do with the Armenians banning guns?  You said they had so few it didn't matter, right?  If that were true, why did they need to ban them?  Now do you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now about you wanting to ban high capacity magazines, do I understand you correctly that you want the army and police to have high capacity magazines but the people who the 2nd Amendment was meant to protect shouldn't?  In what bizzaro world does that make any sense at all?
Click to expand...

Yes....because I trust the army and police more than some survivalist nutcase


----------



## rightwinger

Yarddog said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like something you would know about, not me. The only thing I have ever advocated banning were ammo cartridges so large that their only practical use was in assault weapons.
> 
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with the Armenians banning guns?  You said they had so few it didn't matter, right?  If that were true, why did they need to ban them?  Now do you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See post 221.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, I know.  It was that post which caused me to ask you the question if there were so few guns why did they need to ban them.  A question you have still not answered.  So why did they need to ban them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see no particular need to answer it twice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Turk government banned guns so that when they went door to door killing civilians they would meet miniumum resistance. End of story.   Of course our government wont do something like that, but who knows what we will have in 50 years or 100 from now. preserving second amendment rights today is preserving second amendment rights for future generations. remember , once something is gone it is much harder to get it back.
Click to expand...

OK....let's play out your tyrannical US government going door to door killing people. 
They show up at your door in the middle of the night with night vision, armored personnel carriers, full body armor and a helicopter overhead

You going to shoot it out or just pee your pants?


----------



## ding

rightwinger said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Armenians were an impoverished people, in a land where ownership of a cow and a couple of sheep meant that you were a wealthy man. In 1915, guns and ammunition were luxury items, in this part of the world, for anyone who was not in the business of being a highwayman for a living. In this part of the world, armies had just barely advanced beyond swordsmen on horseback.
> 
> 
> 
> For the THIRD time, so why did they need to ban guns?  Don't be shy.  Don't be afraid to answer.  Just blurt it out.  You can do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like something you would know about, not me. The only thing I have ever advocated banning were ammo cartridges so large that their only practical use was in assault weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does that have to do with the Armenians banning guns?  You said they had so few it didn't matter, right?  If that were true, why did they need to ban them?  Now do you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now about you wanting to ban high capacity magazines, do I understand you correctly that you want the army and police to have high capacity magazines but the people who the 2nd Amendment was meant to protect shouldn't?  In what bizzaro world does that make any sense at all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes....because I trust the army and police more than some survivalist nutcase
Click to expand...

I guess you haven't been watching the news much lately, lol.


----------



## ding

rightwinger said:


> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with the Armenians banning guns?  You said they had so few it didn't matter, right?  If that were true, why did they need to ban them?  Now do you understand?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See post 221.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, I know.  It was that post which caused me to ask you the question if there were so few guns why did they need to ban them.  A question you have still not answered.  So why did they need to ban them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see no particular need to answer it twice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Turk government banned guns so that when they went door to door killing civilians they would meet miniumum resistance. End of story.   Of course our government wont do something like that, but who knows what we will have in 50 years or 100 from now. preserving second amendment rights today is preserving second amendment rights for future generations. remember , once something is gone it is much harder to get it back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK....let's play out your tyrannical US government going door to door killing people.
> They show up at your door in the middle of the night with night vision, armored personnel carriers, full body armor and a helicopter overhead
> 
> You going to shoot it out or just pee your pants?
Click to expand...

For like the 20th time, an armed populace keeps the government in check so there won't be that need.  Why is this so hard for you to understand?  You keep making a logical fallacy argument.  Are you so fanatical in your beliefs that you have suspended all ability to use reason and logic?


----------



## rightwinger

ding said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the THIRD time, so why did they need to ban guns?  Don't be shy.  Don't be afraid to answer.  Just blurt it out.  You can do it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like something you would know about, not me. The only thing I have ever advocated banning were ammo cartridges so large that their only practical use was in assault weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does that have to do with the Armenians banning guns?  You said they had so few it didn't matter, right?  If that were true, why did they need to ban them?  Now do you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now about you wanting to ban high capacity magazines, do I understand you correctly that you want the army and police to have high capacity magazines but the people who the 2nd Amendment was meant to protect shouldn't?  In what bizzaro world does that make any sense at all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes....because I trust the army and police more than some survivalist nutcase
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess you haven't been watching the news much lately, lol.
Click to expand...

Yes......I see 32,000 gun deaths a year thanks to our second amendment keeping us safe


----------



## rightwinger

ding said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> See post 221.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I know.  It was that post which caused me to ask you the question if there were so few guns why did they need to ban them.  A question you have still not answered.  So why did they need to ban them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see no particular need to answer it twice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Turk government banned guns so that when they went door to door killing civilians they would meet miniumum resistance. End of story.   Of course our government wont do something like that, but who knows what we will have in 50 years or 100 from now. preserving second amendment rights today is preserving second amendment rights for future generations. remember , once something is gone it is much harder to get it back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK....let's play out your tyrannical US government going door to door killing people.
> They show up at your door in the middle of the night with night vision, armored personnel carriers, full body armor and a helicopter overhead
> 
> You going to shoot it out or just pee your pants?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For like the 20th time, an armed populace keeps the government in check so there won't be that need.  Why is this so hard for you to understand?  You keep making a logical fallacy argument.  Are you so fanatical in your beliefs that you have suspended all ability to use reason and logic?
Click to expand...

Repeating that nonsense does not make it true

Wasn't true in 1776, isn't true now


----------



## emilynghiem

Boss said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not the gun but the choice they want.
> Like people who fight for abortion rights, don't all want abortions, they want the
> choice not to have govt interfere that personally with them. Similar with gun rights.
> They don't trust govt to regulate those, just like not trusting govt to regulate abortion rights.
> 
> It symbolizes a line in the sand where govt cannot tell you to give up your free choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I totally disagree with this on a fundamental basis. So-called "abortion rights" have nothing in common with our 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. The Constitution states very specifically that we have the inalienable right to own firearms. Nowhere does it say we have an inalienable right to kill the unborn. That is a manufactured right that doesn't exist and is not inalienable at all.
> 
> Our 2nd Amendment right is NOT about choice, it's about an inalienable right we have which can't be removed by man. We've seen all the usual arguments in this thread over what the framers meant about this or that but the bottom line remains, this was the #2 listed right in our bill of rights for a reason. It is fundamentally and vitally important to our freedom. Abortion is not and never has been.
> 
> Now, let's cut to the chase here... The REASON you have people arguing against the 2nd Amendment is because they are promoting a Socialist idea straight out of Marx's Communist Manifesto. Oh, I know the eyes are rolling... here he goes again... but this is the truth. Karl Marx spoke extensively of how it was essential to disarm the populace in order for the central authority to control the people more effectively. And if you listen to the leftists here, you see that they certainly understand this by the way they argue. They constantly attack the notion that the people would ever rise up and overthrow a tyrannic government as silly and ridiculous.
> 
> We don't need to argue that point with them, or any point, to be honest. It does not matter what the reasons are for our 2nd Amendment. It exists and it's inalienable. That's really the beginning and ending of the debate. Any arguments beyond that are superfluous. Now, as citizens of our respective states, we can outline parameters or rules for how our 2A rights are regulated. That is also a fundamental right we have to self-govern.
Click to expand...


Dear Boss 
1. I am saying they are both political beliefs, and people want a choice in their beliefs
2. Of course, the status is different, because "right to bear arms" is WRITTEN into the Constitutional articles
(and part of the FOUNDING Bill of Rights passed as a condition for ratifying the original Constitution),
and others have pointed out "right to life" is found in writing in both the Constitutional articles and founding documents
3. Regardless the REASONS for people arguing against this or that
"they do not BELIEVE" in the justifications by the other side.

You and I can cite Constitutional history and the meaning of court precedence all day and night
(look at Tennyson and the thread on Gay marriage is not a constitutional right)
and IT STILL DOESN'T CHANGE PEOPLE'S CORE BELIEFS

Boss it is part of natural law, even written in the Bible that the Courts are going to be under SECULAR law
and that's what they use.

People are either designed in their spirit and minds to put God/church/people/private sector first as the default source
(where people form agreements based on consent, and then the civil govt follows and reflect that as a social contract and cannot be in conflict)
OR
they use Govt "as the default" to establish "the collective will of the people" as secular public policy
(and the church or any other religious difference like we are talking about is SECONDARY and optional under that
but still has to comply with the default)

For example, when Christians wanted to protect "right to prayer" in schools, the most they could pass
is "moment of silence" being recognized. (It has been pointed out before how individual students can pray but school administrators cannot lead or invoke group prayer and ask those present to join in praying in the name of God or Jesus, etc.)

So the Christians have to submit to SECULAR authority and trim out any bias or belief references
that aren't accepted as whatever the "default" standard is.

We need to follow a similar process here.

1. It's clear that when interpreting and applying the 2nd Amendment language on the right of the people to bear arms,
the broader default interpretation of People is all citizens (and we can agree on LAW ABIDING citizens
since I think we all also agree this law does NOT MEAN to give anyone the right to bear arms to commit crimes,
because violating due process and right to life liberty or property of others still violates the Bill of Rights,
and we agree the enumeration of laws does not give right to interpret ANY Amendment to violate any others)

2. Then if people want to enforce an ADDITIONAL condition or restriction (such as Christians want an ADDITIONAL type of condition on group prayer or invoking God or Jesus specifically) then this belief that citizens bearing guns is restricted to state militia is a BELIEF that not all people share (just like not all people agree to pray in Jesus name).

We don't have to attack each other's beliefs to show which is the default and which is the added condition.

Then from there, whatever objections are going on, mostly focused on not letting criminals abuse the 2nd amendment to violate other rights of people protected other other amendments,
we can address that without trying to impose or introduce a bias that not all people agree to. Leave that alone.

We need to focus on how to ensure we have law abiding citizens, how to write and enforce laws on this locally
where it's coming from people affected and not top-down-govt, so that gun laws can be enforced consistently.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Yarddog said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> See post 221.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I know.  It was that post which caused me to ask you the question if there were so few guns why did they need to ban them.  A question you have still not answered.  So why did they need to ban them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see no particular need to answer it twice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Turk government banned guns so that when they went door to door killing civilians they would meet miniumum resistance. End of story.   Of course our government wont do something like that, but who knows what we will have in 50 years or 100 from now. preserving second amendment rights today is preserving second amendment rights for future generations. remember , once something is gone it is much harder to get it back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem I have with your comments is that you're so willing to keep your guns, but so unwilling to vote properly in order to not have a govt that acts like this. It's shocking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  which candidate is calling for disarming US citizens and rounding them up?
Click to expand...

None.


----------



## Vandalshandle

ding said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like something you would know about, not me. The only thing I have ever advocated banning were ammo cartridges so large that their only practical use was in assault weapons.
> 
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with the Armenians banning guns?  You said they had so few it didn't matter, right?  If that were true, why did they need to ban them?  Now do you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See post 221.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, I know.  It was that post which caused me to ask you the question if there were so few guns why did they need to ban them.  A question you have still not answered.  So why did they need to ban them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see no particular need to answer it twice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn't answer it once.
Click to expand...


Look, Ding, I am sure that in your fantasy world, someone is going to come in the middle of the night and take your guns away from you, but that you will fight off their tyranny with crossbows and Desert Eagles until the bitter end, until you run out of toilet paper in your redoubt, or they take your gun from your cold, dead hands, whichever comes first; but, I live in the real world, and all I want is to stop private sales of firearms to Bubba, who's wife, Hattie May has a restraining order on him, from buying a Saturday Night special to off her.


----------



## Vandalshandle

ding said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with the Armenians banning guns?  You said they had so few it didn't matter, right?  If that were true, why did they need to ban them?  Now do you understand?
> 
> 
> 
> Now about you wanting to ban high capacity magazines, do I understand you correctly that you want the army and police to have high capacity magazines but the people who the 2nd Amendment was meant to protect shouldn't?  In what bizzaro world does that make any sense at all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ding, if in your fantasy world, you are going to become an urban freedom fighter and overcome the combined army, navy and air force of the United States government, then you need to start saving up to buy your own BatTank, BatHelicopter, and BatGunboat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An armed populace is a deterrent against a tyrannical government and it has worked.
> 
> deterrent; a thing that discourages or is intended to discourage someone from doing something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The government is terrified of you and your 1911.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To be fair... it does have pearl handles.  Besides I like MY chance better with a gun rather than without a gun.  Guns aren't for everyone.  A gun may not be for you.  Some women and effeminate men don't have the hand strength to work the slide.   Some women and effeminate men are scared of loud noises.  At the end of the day, I fully respect your right to go into battle unarmed and unable to protect any of your loved ones.  I won't look at you as any less of a man.  I promise.
Click to expand...


Common, Ding, no way you can be 55 years old. Are you going to beat me up at recess?


----------



## Vandalshandle

Skull Pilot said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, there was this little dust up going on, which was later referred to as WWI, in which all of the various ethnic cultures under domination of the Turks were trying to overthrow the Turks. You must have heard about it. It was in all the papers....
> 
> Private ownership of guns in that region was almost unheard of at the time. They were lucky if they could afford a dagger.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain how things could have been any worse for the Armenians when the Turks went marching through their streets going door to door and the Armenians were armed. If anything, perhaps a few more families would have escaped. I'm sure most of them were taken by surprise.
> 
> Please someone name a genocide taken against a civilian population by its own gov. when that population was armed.  It hasnt happened yet but on the flip side....  well, the facts are what they are
> 
> The Armenian Genocide of 1915
> 
> 
> *World War I Begins and the Genocide Follows*
> The Ottoman Empire allied with Germany and Austria-Hungary in World War I. Fearing that Armenians would side with Russia, a Christian nation, the Turks disarmed the Armenian population. When the Russians handed the Turks a crushing defeat at the battle of Sarikemish in the Caucuses, the Turks accused the Armenians of fighting for the Russians and blamed them for the loss. In response, the Young Turks ordered the execution or deportation of the Armenian population. The genocide began on April 24, 1915, when the Turkish government arrested and executed about 300 intellectuals. Turks went door to door, rounding up male Armenians. They shot and killed them. Women, children, and the elderly were sent on death marches through the Syrian desert to concentration camps. Hundreds died of thirst, starvation, and exposure along the way. Those who stopped to rest were shot. Many Armenian children were spared death, but were forced to convert to Islam and join Turkish families. The government passed legislation to confiscate Armenian property. As many as 2 million Armenians were living in the Ottoman Empire just before the outbreak of World War I. At the end of the genocide, there were just 388,000 Armenians remaining there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Armenians were an impoverished people, in a land where ownership of a cow and a couple of sheep meant that you were a wealthy man. In 1915, guns and ammunition were luxury items, in this part of the world, for anyone who was not in the business of being a highwayman for a living. In this part of the world, armies had just barely advanced beyond swordsmen on horseback.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For the THIRD time, so why did they need to ban guns?  Don't be shy.  Don't be afraid to answer.  Just blurt it out.  You can do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like something you would know about, not me. The only thing I have ever advocated banning were ammo cartridges so large that their only practical use was in assault weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The public cannot get "assault" weapons
> 
> The only thing civilians can buy are semiautomatic weapons which have been around since the mid 1800's.
> 
> Magazine size is a red herring
> 
> Just because my 9mm can hold a 17 round magazine doesn't mean I am going to shoot 17 people
> Just because a person had a 30 round magazine for a semiauto rifle doesn't mean he is going to shoot up a school
Click to expand...


...and just because North Korea has a nuclear bomb doesn't mean that they are going to use it, so we'll just let that pass without concern.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Vandalshandle said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain how things could have been any worse for the Armenians when the Turks went marching through their streets going door to door and the Armenians were armed. If anything, perhaps a few more families would have escaped. I'm sure most of them were taken by surprise.
> 
> Please someone name a genocide taken against a civilian population by its own gov. when that population was armed.  It hasnt happened yet but on the flip side....  well, the facts are what they are
> 
> The Armenian Genocide of 1915
> 
> 
> *World War I Begins and the Genocide Follows*
> The Ottoman Empire allied with Germany and Austria-Hungary in World War I. Fearing that Armenians would side with Russia, a Christian nation, the Turks disarmed the Armenian population. When the Russians handed the Turks a crushing defeat at the battle of Sarikemish in the Caucuses, the Turks accused the Armenians of fighting for the Russians and blamed them for the loss. In response, the Young Turks ordered the execution or deportation of the Armenian population. The genocide began on April 24, 1915, when the Turkish government arrested and executed about 300 intellectuals. Turks went door to door, rounding up male Armenians. They shot and killed them. Women, children, and the elderly were sent on death marches through the Syrian desert to concentration camps. Hundreds died of thirst, starvation, and exposure along the way. Those who stopped to rest were shot. Many Armenian children were spared death, but were forced to convert to Islam and join Turkish families. The government passed legislation to confiscate Armenian property. As many as 2 million Armenians were living in the Ottoman Empire just before the outbreak of World War I. At the end of the genocide, there were just 388,000 Armenians remaining there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Armenians were an impoverished people, in a land where ownership of a cow and a couple of sheep meant that you were a wealthy man. In 1915, guns and ammunition were luxury items, in this part of the world, for anyone who was not in the business of being a highwayman for a living. In this part of the world, armies had just barely advanced beyond swordsmen on horseback.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For the THIRD time, so why did they need to ban guns?  Don't be shy.  Don't be afraid to answer.  Just blurt it out.  You can do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like something you would know about, not me. The only thing I have ever advocated banning were ammo cartridges so large that their only practical use was in assault weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The public cannot get "assault" weapons
> 
> The only thing civilians can buy are semiautomatic weapons which have been around since the mid 1800's.
> 
> Magazine size is a red herring
> 
> Just because my 9mm can hold a 17 round magazine doesn't mean I am going to shoot 17 people
> Just because a person had a 30 round magazine for a semiauto rifle doesn't mean he is going to shoot up a school
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...and just because North Korea has a nuclear bomb doesn't mean that they are going to use it, so we'll just let that pass without concern.
Click to expand...

yes because we all know a semi auto and a nuclear bomb are exactly alike


----------



## Vandalshandle

Skull Pilot said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Armenians were an impoverished people, in a land where ownership of a cow and a couple of sheep meant that you were a wealthy man. In 1915, guns and ammunition were luxury items, in this part of the world, for anyone who was not in the business of being a highwayman for a living. In this part of the world, armies had just barely advanced beyond swordsmen on horseback.
> 
> 
> 
> For the THIRD time, so why did they need to ban guns?  Don't be shy.  Don't be afraid to answer.  Just blurt it out.  You can do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like something you would know about, not me. The only thing I have ever advocated banning were ammo cartridges so large that their only practical use was in assault weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The public cannot get "assault" weapons
> 
> The only thing civilians can buy are semiautomatic weapons which have been around since the mid 1800's.
> 
> Magazine size is a red herring
> 
> Just because my 9mm can hold a 17 round magazine doesn't mean I am going to shoot 17 people
> Just because a person had a 30 round magazine for a semiauto rifle doesn't mean he is going to shoot up a school
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...and just because North Korea has a nuclear bomb doesn't mean that they are going to use it, so we'll just let that pass without concern.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes because we all know a semi auto and a nuclear bomb are exactly alike
Click to expand...


I will admit that you are right. if I see you walk into a movie theater with a semi-automatic weapon and a 50 round drum, I am just paranoid enough to suspect that you might be up to no good. 

Silly me.


----------



## Tennyson

emilynghiem said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not the gun but the choice they want.
> Like people who fight for abortion rights, don't all want abortions, they want the
> choice not to have govt interfere that personally with them. Similar with gun rights.
> They don't trust govt to regulate those, just like not trusting govt to regulate abortion rights.
> 
> It symbolizes a line in the sand where govt cannot tell you to give up your free choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I totally disagree with this on a fundamental basis. So-called "abortion rights" have nothing in common with our 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. The Constitution states very specifically that we have the inalienable right to own firearms. Nowhere does it say we have an inalienable right to kill the unborn. That is a manufactured right that doesn't exist and is not inalienable at all.
> 
> Our 2nd Amendment right is NOT about choice, it's about an inalienable right we have which can't be removed by man. We've seen all the usual arguments in this thread over what the framers meant about this or that but the bottom line remains, this was the #2 listed right in our bill of rights for a reason. It is fundamentally and vitally important to our freedom. Abortion is not and never has been.
> 
> Now, let's cut to the chase here... The REASON you have people arguing against the 2nd Amendment is because they are promoting a Socialist idea straight out of Marx's Communist Manifesto. Oh, I know the eyes are rolling... here he goes again... but this is the truth. Karl Marx spoke extensively of how it was essential to disarm the populace in order for the central authority to control the people more effectively. And if you listen to the leftists here, you see that they certainly understand this by the way they argue. They constantly attack the notion that the people would ever rise up and overthrow a tyrannic government as silly and ridiculous.
> 
> We don't need to argue that point with them, or any point, to be honest. It does not matter what the reasons are for our 2nd Amendment. It exists and it's inalienable. That's really the beginning and ending of the debate. Any arguments beyond that are superfluous. Now, as citizens of our respective states, we can outline parameters or rules for how our 2A rights are regulated. That is also a fundamental right we have to self-govern.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Boss
> 1. I am saying they are both political beliefs, and people want a choice in their beliefs
> 2. Of course, the status is different, because "right to bear arms" is WRITTEN into the Constitutional articles
> (and part of the FOUNDING Bill of Rights passed as a condition for ratifying the original Constitution),
> and others have pointed out "right to life" is found in writing in both the Constitutional articles and founding documents
> 3. Regardless the REASONS for people arguing against this or that
> "they do not BELIEVE" in the justifications by the other side.
> 
> You and I can cite Constitutional history and the meaning of court precedence all day and night
> (look at Tennyson and the thread on Gay marriage is not a constitutional right)
> and IT STILL DOESN'T CHANGE PEOPLE'S CORE BELIEFS
> 
> Boss it is part of natural law, even written in the Bible that the Courts are going to be under SECULAR law
> and that's what they use.
> 
> People are either designed in their spirit and minds to put God/church/people/private sector first as the default source
> (where people form agreements based on consent, and then the civil govt follows and reflect that as a social contract and cannot be in conflict)
> OR
> they use Govt "as the default" to establish "the collective will of the people" as secular public policy
> (and the church or any other religious difference like we are talking about is SECONDARY and optional under that
> but still has to comply with the default)
> 
> For example, when Christians wanted to protect "right to prayer" in schools, the most they could pass
> is "moment of silence" being recognized. (It has been pointed out before how individual students can pray but school administrators cannot lead or invoke group prayer and ask those present to join in praying in the name of God or Jesus, etc.)
> 
> So the Christians have to submit to SECULAR authority and trim out any bias or belief references
> that aren't accepted as whatever the "default" standard is.
> 
> We need to follow a similar process here.
> 
> 1. It's clear that when interpreting and applying the 2nd Amendment language on the right of the people to bear arms,
> the broader default interpretation of People is all citizens (and we can agree on LAW ABIDING citizens
> since I think we all also agree this law does NOT MEAN to give anyone the right to bear arms to commit crimes,
> because violating due process and right to life liberty or property of others still violates the Bill of Rights,
> and we agree the enumeration of laws does not give right to interpret ANY Amendment to violate any others)
> 
> 2. Then if people want to enforce an ADDITIONAL condition or restriction (such as Christians want an ADDITIONAL type of condition on group prayer or invoking God or Jesus specifically) then this belief that citizens bearing guns is restricted to state militia is a BELIEF that not all people share (just like not all people agree to pray in Jesus name).
> 
> We don't have to attack each other's beliefs to show which is the default and which is the added condition.
> 
> Then from there, whatever objections are going on, mostly focused on not letting criminals abuse the 2nd amendment to violate other rights of people protected other other amendments,
> we can address that without trying to impose or introduce a bias that not all people agree to. Leave that alone.
> 
> We need to focus on how to ensure we have law abiding citizens, how to write and enforce laws on this locally
> where it's coming from people affected and not top-down-govt, so that gun laws can be enforced consistently.
Click to expand...






> Boss it is part of natural law, even written in the Bible that the Courts are going to be under SECULAR law and that's what they use.




Emilynghiem,

Consider the following and always be mindful of the fallacy of _nunc pro tunc._

James Wilson, signer of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, the most active speaker at the Philadelphia convention with 168 speeches, one of the most active authors of clauses in the Constitution, Supreme Court justice from 1789-1798, the first law professor at University of Pennsylvania, wrote in his Lectures on Law, 1789-1791:

All law comes from God and there are four categories: Law eternal, law celestial, laws of nature, and laws communicated to us by reason and conscience and called natural; as promulgated by the Holy Scriptures, it has been called revealed.

Efficient cause of moral obligation of the eminent distinction between right and wrong and therefore the supreme law. It is revealed by our conscience, by our reason, and by the Holy Scriptures.

All laws, however, may be arranged in two different classes. 1) Divine. 2) Human...But it should always be remembered that this law, natural or revealed, made for men or for nations, flows from the same Divine source: it is the law of God. Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other.​


----------



## Yarddog

ding said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> See post 221.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I know.  It was that post which caused me to ask you the question if there were so few guns why did they need to ban them.  A question you have still not answered.  So why did they need to ban them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see no particular need to answer it twice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Turk government banned guns so that when they went door to door killing civilians they would meet miniumum resistance. End of story.   Of course our government wont do something like that, but who knows what we will have in 50 years or 100 from now. preserving second amendment rights today is preserving second amendment rights for future generations. remember , once something is gone it is much harder to get it back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK....let's play out your tyrannical US government going door to door killing people.
> They show up at your door in the middle of the night with night vision, armored personnel carriers, full body armor and a helicopter overhead
> 
> You going to shoot it out or just pee your pants?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For like the 20th time, an armed populace keeps the government in check so there won't be that need.  Why is this so hard for you to understand?  You keep making a logical fallacy argument.  Are you so fanatical in your beliefs that you have suspended all ability to use reason and logic?
Click to expand...



Yep, i've basically stated that but they just don't understand. people don't want a fight. they want peace but what these guys don't understand is that to keep that peace a government needs barriers against it, to prevent the ruling class from just rolling along doing whatever they want. Seperation of powers, individual states rights and the bill of rights and amendments,  all barriers to a central government that the founders knew inevitably would become corrupt to a degree if simply allowed


----------



## emilynghiem

Tennyson said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not the gun but the choice they want.
> Like people who fight for abortion rights, don't all want abortions, they want the
> choice not to have govt interfere that personally with them. Similar with gun rights.
> They don't trust govt to regulate those, just like not trusting govt to regulate abortion rights.
> 
> It symbolizes a line in the sand where govt cannot tell you to give up your free choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I totally disagree with this on a fundamental basis. So-called "abortion rights" have nothing in common with our 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. The Constitution states very specifically that we have the inalienable right to own firearms. Nowhere does it say we have an inalienable right to kill the unborn. That is a manufactured right that doesn't exist and is not inalienable at all.
> 
> Our 2nd Amendment right is NOT about choice, it's about an inalienable right we have which can't be removed by man. We've seen all the usual arguments in this thread over what the framers meant about this or that but the bottom line remains, this was the #2 listed right in our bill of rights for a reason. It is fundamentally and vitally important to our freedom. Abortion is not and never has been.
> 
> Now, let's cut to the chase here... The REASON you have people arguing against the 2nd Amendment is because they are promoting a Socialist idea straight out of Marx's Communist Manifesto. Oh, I know the eyes are rolling... here he goes again... but this is the truth. Karl Marx spoke extensively of how it was essential to disarm the populace in order for the central authority to control the people more effectively. And if you listen to the leftists here, you see that they certainly understand this by the way they argue. They constantly attack the notion that the people would ever rise up and overthrow a tyrannic government as silly and ridiculous.
> 
> We don't need to argue that point with them, or any point, to be honest. It does not matter what the reasons are for our 2nd Amendment. It exists and it's inalienable. That's really the beginning and ending of the debate. Any arguments beyond that are superfluous. Now, as citizens of our respective states, we can outline parameters or rules for how our 2A rights are regulated. That is also a fundamental right we have to self-govern.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Boss
> 1. I am saying they are both political beliefs, and people want a choice in their beliefs
> 2. Of course, the status is different, because "right to bear arms" is WRITTEN into the Constitutional articles
> (and part of the FOUNDING Bill of Rights passed as a condition for ratifying the original Constitution),
> and others have pointed out "right to life" is found in writing in both the Constitutional articles and founding documents
> 3. Regardless the REASONS for people arguing against this or that
> "they do not BELIEVE" in the justifications by the other side.
> 
> You and I can cite Constitutional history and the meaning of court precedence all day and night
> (look at Tennyson and the thread on Gay marriage is not a constitutional right)
> and IT STILL DOESN'T CHANGE PEOPLE'S CORE BELIEFS
> 
> Boss it is part of natural law, even written in the Bible that the Courts are going to be under SECULAR law
> and that's what they use.
> 
> People are either designed in their spirit and minds to put God/church/people/private sector first as the default source
> (where people form agreements based on consent, and then the civil govt follows and reflect that as a social contract and cannot be in conflict)
> OR
> they use Govt "as the default" to establish "the collective will of the people" as secular public policy
> (and the church or any other religious difference like we are talking about is SECONDARY and optional under that
> but still has to comply with the default)
> 
> For example, when Christians wanted to protect "right to prayer" in schools, the most they could pass
> is "moment of silence" being recognized. (It has been pointed out before how individual students can pray but school administrators cannot lead or invoke group prayer and ask those present to join in praying in the name of God or Jesus, etc.)
> 
> So the Christians have to submit to SECULAR authority and trim out any bias or belief references
> that aren't accepted as whatever the "default" standard is.
> 
> We need to follow a similar process here.
> 
> 1. It's clear that when interpreting and applying the 2nd Amendment language on the right of the people to bear arms,
> the broader default interpretation of People is all citizens (and we can agree on LAW ABIDING citizens
> since I think we all also agree this law does NOT MEAN to give anyone the right to bear arms to commit crimes,
> because violating due process and right to life liberty or property of others still violates the Bill of Rights,
> and we agree the enumeration of laws does not give right to interpret ANY Amendment to violate any others)
> 
> 2. Then if people want to enforce an ADDITIONAL condition or restriction (such as Christians want an ADDITIONAL type of condition on group prayer or invoking God or Jesus specifically) then this belief that citizens bearing guns is restricted to state militia is a BELIEF that not all people share (just like not all people agree to pray in Jesus name).
> 
> We don't have to attack each other's beliefs to show which is the default and which is the added condition.
> 
> Then from there, whatever objections are going on, mostly focused on not letting criminals abuse the 2nd amendment to violate other rights of people protected other other amendments,
> we can address that without trying to impose or introduce a bias that not all people agree to. Leave that alone.
> 
> We need to focus on how to ensure we have law abiding citizens, how to write and enforce laws on this locally
> where it's coming from people affected and not top-down-govt, so that gun laws can be enforced consistently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss it is part of natural law, even written in the Bible that the Courts are going to be under SECULAR law and that's what they use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Emilynghiem,
> 
> Consider the following and always be mindful of the fallacy of _nunc pro tunc._
> 
> James Wilson, signer of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, the most active speaker at the Philadelphia convention with 168 speeches, one of the most active authors of clauses in the Constitution, Supreme Court justice from 1789-1798, the first law professor at University of Pennsylvania, wrote in his Lectures on Law, 1789-1791:
> 
> All law comes from God and there are four categories: Law eternal, law celestial, laws of nature, and laws communicated to us by reason and conscience and called natural; as promulgated by the Holy Scriptures, it has been called revealed.
> 
> Efficient cause of moral obligation of the eminent distinction between right and wrong and therefore the supreme law. It is revealed by our conscience, by our reason, and by the Holy Scriptures.
> 
> All laws, however, may be arranged in two different classes. 1) Divine. 2) Human...But it should always be remembered that this law, natural or revealed, made for men or for nations, flows from the same Divine source: it is the law of God. Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other.​
Click to expand...


Thank you Tennyson
Again, this source already comes from the bias that
* God's laws or spiritual laws come first and the govt or secular laws follow as a contract based on consent but don't impose
vs
* secular and govt laws are the public institutions that serve as default
and "beliefs about God's laws" come second as optional as choice of the people, and these follow govt but don't impose

The "default" I find works is to include people of BOTH sets of beliefs, and let them express themselves.
Treat those as equal and don't let either set A or set B impose on each other
Find areas of agreement (which public policy can be based on)
and stay away from areas where beliefs have to remain separated because they conflict.
Then find ways, either through state or party or other private means or public if it can be agreed on,
to accommodate those beliefs where people agree they are equally represented and protected,
not excluded or discriminated against.

I'm perfectly fine with and appreciate the sources you cite.
If other people agree to follow those, that's faster and even better.

But if they already believe in putting govt first, and don't think like
we do that universal laws outside govt framework can be agreed on first,
then they see this as imposing an outside belief system on their
beliefs of starting with Govt as the default.  That's how they set up their priorities,
and it's internally set like the mindset of nontheists who see the world
in secular terms and not as a personified God creating the world and laws.

Do you understand that the belief system and entire mindset of the
liberal secular approach does not set up the framework the same way,
but sees this as a religious construct they don't believe in
and thus govt cannot be abused to force it on them?

Do you understand they see it as optional to think that way,
and they have such inherent right to believe and think their way,
that many do not believe their way is an "optional belief"
but is the default truth?


----------



## emilynghiem

Vandalshandle said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain how things could have been any worse for the Armenians when the Turks went marching through their streets going door to door and the Armenians were armed. If anything, perhaps a few more families would have escaped. I'm sure most of them were taken by surprise.
> 
> Please someone name a genocide taken against a civilian population by its own gov. when that population was armed.  It hasnt happened yet but on the flip side....  well, the facts are what they are
> 
> The Armenian Genocide of 1915
> 
> 
> *World War I Begins and the Genocide Follows*
> The Ottoman Empire allied with Germany and Austria-Hungary in World War I. Fearing that Armenians would side with Russia, a Christian nation, the Turks disarmed the Armenian population. When the Russians handed the Turks a crushing defeat at the battle of Sarikemish in the Caucuses, the Turks accused the Armenians of fighting for the Russians and blamed them for the loss. In response, the Young Turks ordered the execution or deportation of the Armenian population. The genocide began on April 24, 1915, when the Turkish government arrested and executed about 300 intellectuals. Turks went door to door, rounding up male Armenians. They shot and killed them. Women, children, and the elderly were sent on death marches through the Syrian desert to concentration camps. Hundreds died of thirst, starvation, and exposure along the way. Those who stopped to rest were shot. Many Armenian children were spared death, but were forced to convert to Islam and join Turkish families. The government passed legislation to confiscate Armenian property. As many as 2 million Armenians were living in the Ottoman Empire just before the outbreak of World War I. At the end of the genocide, there were just 388,000 Armenians remaining there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Armenians were an impoverished people, in a land where ownership of a cow and a couple of sheep meant that you were a wealthy man. In 1915, guns and ammunition were luxury items, in this part of the world, for anyone who was not in the business of being a highwayman for a living. In this part of the world, armies had just barely advanced beyond swordsmen on horseback.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For the THIRD time, so why did they need to ban guns?  Don't be shy.  Don't be afraid to answer.  Just blurt it out.  You can do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like something you would know about, not me. The only thing I have ever advocated banning were ammo cartridges so large that their only practical use was in assault weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The public cannot get "assault" weapons
> 
> The only thing civilians can buy are semiautomatic weapons which have been around since the mid 1800's.
> 
> Magazine size is a red herring
> 
> Just because my 9mm can hold a 17 round magazine doesn't mean I am going to shoot 17 people
> Just because a person had a 30 round magazine for a semiauto rifle doesn't mean he is going to shoot up a school
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...and just because North Korea has a nuclear bomb doesn't mean that they are going to use it, so we'll just let that pass without concern.
Click to expand...


Dear Skull Pilot and Vandalshandle 
The same way I would not take the 2nd Amendment out of context with the rest of the Bill of Rights,
but interpret "right of people to bear arms" as "law abiding citizens" (meaning within the CONTEXT of
defending laws not violating them, with respect to due process and not depriving anyone of rights
to life liberty or property or other principles)

Why not enforce this condition with nuclear arms as well:
that countries must also pledge to enforce those same basic rights and due process of laws,
and in order to proactively interact with other countries,
show a record of having diplomatically resolved conflicts and enforced laws by consensus,
before using armed forces to police threats by other countries.

If all they have is a record of aggression and complaints of coercion or abuse,
they'd have to go back and resolve those and restore good faith relations first,
in order to establish a record of diplomatic peacekeeping to justify using arms for policing.


----------



## Boss

emilynghiem said:


> Boss it is part of natural law, even written in the Bible that the Courts are going to be under SECULAR law
> and that's what they use.



The problem is, our country is not established on a secular belief system. God is essential for "inalienable" rights, otherwise, man can alienate those rights at will. So the entire premise we are founded upon rests on the belief in a God who endowed us with rights. You are not obligated to believe in God but that doesn't mean you can change our system to fit your beliefs.


----------



## rightwinger

The second amendment was a quaint idea at the time, but is no longer needed for national defense

Let the states handle gun rights





.


----------



## Tennyson

emilynghiem said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not the gun but the choice they want.
> Like people who fight for abortion rights, don't all want abortions, they want the
> choice not to have govt interfere that personally with them. Similar with gun rights.
> They don't trust govt to regulate those, just like not trusting govt to regulate abortion rights.
> 
> It symbolizes a line in the sand where govt cannot tell you to give up your free choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I totally disagree with this on a fundamental basis. So-called "abortion rights" have nothing in common with our 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. The Constitution states very specifically that we have the inalienable right to own firearms. Nowhere does it say we have an inalienable right to kill the unborn. That is a manufactured right that doesn't exist and is not inalienable at all.
> 
> Our 2nd Amendment right is NOT about choice, it's about an inalienable right we have which can't be removed by man. We've seen all the usual arguments in this thread over what the framers meant about this or that but the bottom line remains, this was the #2 listed right in our bill of rights for a reason. It is fundamentally and vitally important to our freedom. Abortion is not and never has been.
> 
> Now, let's cut to the chase here... The REASON you have people arguing against the 2nd Amendment is because they are promoting a Socialist idea straight out of Marx's Communist Manifesto. Oh, I know the eyes are rolling... here he goes again... but this is the truth. Karl Marx spoke extensively of how it was essential to disarm the populace in order for the central authority to control the people more effectively. And if you listen to the leftists here, you see that they certainly understand this by the way they argue. They constantly attack the notion that the people would ever rise up and overthrow a tyrannic government as silly and ridiculous.
> 
> We don't need to argue that point with them, or any point, to be honest. It does not matter what the reasons are for our 2nd Amendment. It exists and it's inalienable. That's really the beginning and ending of the debate. Any arguments beyond that are superfluous. Now, as citizens of our respective states, we can outline parameters or rules for how our 2A rights are regulated. That is also a fundamental right we have to self-govern.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Boss
> 1. I am saying they are both political beliefs, and people want a choice in their beliefs
> 2. Of course, the status is different, because "right to bear arms" is WRITTEN into the Constitutional articles
> (and part of the FOUNDING Bill of Rights passed as a condition for ratifying the original Constitution),
> and others have pointed out "right to life" is found in writing in both the Constitutional articles and founding documents
> 3. Regardless the REASONS for people arguing against this or that
> "they do not BELIEVE" in the justifications by the other side.
> 
> You and I can cite Constitutional history and the meaning of court precedence all day and night
> (look at Tennyson and the thread on Gay marriage is not a constitutional right)
> and IT STILL DOESN'T CHANGE PEOPLE'S CORE BELIEFS
> 
> Boss it is part of natural law, even written in the Bible that the Courts are going to be under SECULAR law
> and that's what they use.
> 
> People are either designed in their spirit and minds to put God/church/people/private sector first as the default source
> (where people form agreements based on consent, and then the civil govt follows and reflect that as a social contract and cannot be in conflict)
> OR
> they use Govt "as the default" to establish "the collective will of the people" as secular public policy
> (and the church or any other religious difference like we are talking about is SECONDARY and optional under that
> but still has to comply with the default)
> 
> For example, when Christians wanted to protect "right to prayer" in schools, the most they could pass
> is "moment of silence" being recognized. (It has been pointed out before how individual students can pray but school administrators cannot lead or invoke group prayer and ask those present to join in praying in the name of God or Jesus, etc.)
> 
> So the Christians have to submit to SECULAR authority and trim out any bias or belief references
> that aren't accepted as whatever the "default" standard is.
> 
> We need to follow a similar process here.
> 
> 1. It's clear that when interpreting and applying the 2nd Amendment language on the right of the people to bear arms,
> the broader default interpretation of People is all citizens (and we can agree on LAW ABIDING citizens
> since I think we all also agree this law does NOT MEAN to give anyone the right to bear arms to commit crimes,
> because violating due process and right to life liberty or property of others still violates the Bill of Rights,
> and we agree the enumeration of laws does not give right to interpret ANY Amendment to violate any others)
> 
> 2. Then if people want to enforce an ADDITIONAL condition or restriction (such as Christians want an ADDITIONAL type of condition on group prayer or invoking God or Jesus specifically) then this belief that citizens bearing guns is restricted to state militia is a BELIEF that not all people share (just like not all people agree to pray in Jesus name).
> 
> We don't have to attack each other's beliefs to show which is the default and which is the added condition.
> 
> Then from there, whatever objections are going on, mostly focused on not letting criminals abuse the 2nd amendment to violate other rights of people protected other other amendments,
> we can address that without trying to impose or introduce a bias that not all people agree to. Leave that alone.
> 
> We need to focus on how to ensure we have law abiding citizens, how to write and enforce laws on this locally
> where it's coming from people affected and not top-down-govt, so that gun laws can be enforced consistently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss it is part of natural law, even written in the Bible that the Courts are going to be under SECULAR law and that's what they use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Emilynghiem,
> 
> Consider the following and always be mindful of the fallacy of _nunc pro tunc._
> 
> James Wilson, signer of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, the most active speaker at the Philadelphia convention with 168 speeches, one of the most active authors of clauses in the Constitution, Supreme Court justice from 1789-1798, the first law professor at University of Pennsylvania, wrote in his Lectures on Law, 1789-1791:
> 
> All law comes from God and there are four categories: Law eternal, law celestial, laws of nature, and laws communicated to us by reason and conscience and called natural; as promulgated by the Holy Scriptures, it has been called revealed.
> 
> Efficient cause of moral obligation of the eminent distinction between right and wrong and therefore the supreme law. It is revealed by our conscience, by our reason, and by the Holy Scriptures.
> 
> All laws, however, may be arranged in two different classes. 1) Divine. 2) Human...But it should always be remembered that this law, natural or revealed, made for men or for nations, flows from the same Divine source: it is the law of God. Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you Tennyson
> Again, this source already comes from the bias that
> * God's laws or spiritual laws come first and the govt or secular laws follow as a contract based on consent but don't impose
> vs
> * secular and govt laws are the public institutions that serve as default
> and "beliefs about God's laws" come second as optional as choice of the people, and these follow govt but don't impose
> 
> The "default" I find works is to include people of BOTH sets of beliefs, and let them express themselves.
> Treat those as equal and don't let either set A or set B impose on each other
> Find areas of agreement (which public policy can be based on)
> and stay away from areas where beliefs have to remain separated because they conflict.
> Then find ways, either through state or party or other private means or public if it can be agreed on,
> to accommodate those beliefs where people agree they are equally represented and protected,
> not excluded or discriminated against.
> 
> I'm perfectly fine with and appreciate the sources you cite.
> If other people agree to follow those, that's faster and even better.
> 
> But if they already believe in putting govt first, and don't think like
> we do that universal laws outside govt framework can be agreed on first,
> then they see this as imposing an outside belief system on their
> beliefs of starting with Govt as the default.  That's how they set up their priorities,
> and it's internally set like the mindset of nontheists who see the world
> in secular terms and not as a personified God creating the world and laws.
> 
> Do you understand that the belief system and entire mindset of the
> liberal secular approach does not set up the framework the same way,
> but sees this as a religious construct they don't believe in
> and thus govt cannot be abused to force it on them?
> 
> Do you understand they see it as optional to think that way,
> and they have such inherent right to believe and think their way,
> that many do not believe their way is an "optional belief"
> but is the default truth?
Click to expand...


I was not advocating; just adding a little historical context.

I am not sure that the word “bias” is an accurate description of James Wilson’s statements as they were the prevailing thoughts and the ideological concepts that formed the basis of our government and were consummated with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Keep in mind that the Constitution, the laws, etc. were not applicable to the people or the states, and Wilson was referring to the very limited power the federal government had. The people and their beliefs were governed by the most proximate government: their local and state governments. These were very responsive to the people and could be replaced quickly and easily to create the government the people can choose for themselves. This was federalism.

Expressing oneself was a fully functional state concept, not a federal concept. This is how the majority in a state or municipality could make their own religious accommodations. That is how Rhode Island was created.

The belief system and mindset of the liberal secular does not set-up the framework the same way etc. is readily addressed above at the state and local level. The great thing about the concept of the people being governed by the most proximate government, which is their local and state governments, is that it precludes a bitterly divided country such as the one we have now because federalism does not allow these divisive issue to have a national forum.


----------



## emilynghiem

Boss said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boss it is part of natural law, even written in the Bible that the Courts are going to be under SECULAR law
> and that's what they use.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is, our country is not established on a secular belief system. God is essential for "inalienable" rights, otherwise, man can alienate those rights at will. So the entire premise we are founded upon rests on the belief in a God who endowed us with rights. You are not obligated to believe in God but that doesn't mean you can change our system to fit your beliefs.
Click to expand...


Dear Boss 
People still defend the choice whether to BELIEVE or not in God and this understanding that 
our country was established on that.

Many people come from a background where natural rights are not from God as the source
of both natural laws and spiritual laws.

I have struggled to wrap my mind around this realization the Atheists/secularist minds
that don't come from this God based background
REALLY DO BELIEVE they have nothing and rely on GOVT as the default for deciding and enforcing central laws.

That is what their belief system is based on
An inherent BELIEF not to start with God as the base
but depending solely on secular authority as the "default"

So if we are going to get anywhere with respecting and protecting the God-based belief
at the very least we need to agree to 
respect and protect the secular-govt-based belief system 
as having the right to exercise this on their own.

From there, we can figure out 
how the heck we're going to agree on govt from two different positions.

But we can't get ANYWHERE if both camps keep cutting down each other as wrong and invalid.

Boss are there really 4 party positions and political beliefs?
Liberal Democrats A and B. The ones who bully and will not respect other sides' beliefs
except if theirs are in control.  And A who treat the others equally and will work toward
a common default position where the other views can be under that umbrella.

Conservative Republicans A and B. The ones who bully and will not accept any other beliefs
except in relation to theirs as the established framework. And A who treat the others equally
and will include each other instead of fighting to coerce or exclude unless the other side changes.

is this what we need to present to our party and govt leaders?
A plan for mapping out how to deal with these FOUR factions
so they don't obstruct and destroy their own parties, each other and the nation???


----------



## emilynghiem

Tennyson said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not the gun but the choice they want.
> Like people who fight for abortion rights, don't all want abortions, they want the
> choice not to have govt interfere that personally with them. Similar with gun rights.
> They don't trust govt to regulate those, just like not trusting govt to regulate abortion rights.
> 
> It symbolizes a line in the sand where govt cannot tell you to give up your free choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I totally disagree with this on a fundamental basis. So-called "abortion rights" have nothing in common with our 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. The Constitution states very specifically that we have the inalienable right to own firearms. Nowhere does it say we have an inalienable right to kill the unborn. That is a manufactured right that doesn't exist and is not inalienable at all.
> 
> Our 2nd Amendment right is NOT about choice, it's about an inalienable right we have which can't be removed by man. We've seen all the usual arguments in this thread over what the framers meant about this or that but the bottom line remains, this was the #2 listed right in our bill of rights for a reason. It is fundamentally and vitally important to our freedom. Abortion is not and never has been.
> 
> Now, let's cut to the chase here... The REASON you have people arguing against the 2nd Amendment is because they are promoting a Socialist idea straight out of Marx's Communist Manifesto. Oh, I know the eyes are rolling... here he goes again... but this is the truth. Karl Marx spoke extensively of how it was essential to disarm the populace in order for the central authority to control the people more effectively. And if you listen to the leftists here, you see that they certainly understand this by the way they argue. They constantly attack the notion that the people would ever rise up and overthrow a tyrannic government as silly and ridiculous.
> 
> We don't need to argue that point with them, or any point, to be honest. It does not matter what the reasons are for our 2nd Amendment. It exists and it's inalienable. That's really the beginning and ending of the debate. Any arguments beyond that are superfluous. Now, as citizens of our respective states, we can outline parameters or rules for how our 2A rights are regulated. That is also a fundamental right we have to self-govern.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Boss
> 1. I am saying they are both political beliefs, and people want a choice in their beliefs
> 2. Of course, the status is different, because "right to bear arms" is WRITTEN into the Constitutional articles
> (and part of the FOUNDING Bill of Rights passed as a condition for ratifying the original Constitution),
> and others have pointed out "right to life" is found in writing in both the Constitutional articles and founding documents
> 3. Regardless the REASONS for people arguing against this or that
> "they do not BELIEVE" in the justifications by the other side.
> 
> You and I can cite Constitutional history and the meaning of court precedence all day and night
> (look at Tennyson and the thread on Gay marriage is not a constitutional right)
> and IT STILL DOESN'T CHANGE PEOPLE'S CORE BELIEFS
> 
> Boss it is part of natural law, even written in the Bible that the Courts are going to be under SECULAR law
> and that's what they use.
> 
> People are either designed in their spirit and minds to put God/church/people/private sector first as the default source
> (where people form agreements based on consent, and then the civil govt follows and reflect that as a social contract and cannot be in conflict)
> OR
> they use Govt "as the default" to establish "the collective will of the people" as secular public policy
> (and the church or any other religious difference like we are talking about is SECONDARY and optional under that
> but still has to comply with the default)
> 
> For example, when Christians wanted to protect "right to prayer" in schools, the most they could pass
> is "moment of silence" being recognized. (It has been pointed out before how individual students can pray but school administrators cannot lead or invoke group prayer and ask those present to join in praying in the name of God or Jesus, etc.)
> 
> So the Christians have to submit to SECULAR authority and trim out any bias or belief references
> that aren't accepted as whatever the "default" standard is.
> 
> We need to follow a similar process here.
> 
> 1. It's clear that when interpreting and applying the 2nd Amendment language on the right of the people to bear arms,
> the broader default interpretation of People is all citizens (and we can agree on LAW ABIDING citizens
> since I think we all also agree this law does NOT MEAN to give anyone the right to bear arms to commit crimes,
> because violating due process and right to life liberty or property of others still violates the Bill of Rights,
> and we agree the enumeration of laws does not give right to interpret ANY Amendment to violate any others)
> 
> 2. Then if people want to enforce an ADDITIONAL condition or restriction (such as Christians want an ADDITIONAL type of condition on group prayer or invoking God or Jesus specifically) then this belief that citizens bearing guns is restricted to state militia is a BELIEF that not all people share (just like not all people agree to pray in Jesus name).
> 
> We don't have to attack each other's beliefs to show which is the default and which is the added condition.
> 
> Then from there, whatever objections are going on, mostly focused on not letting criminals abuse the 2nd amendment to violate other rights of people protected other other amendments,
> we can address that without trying to impose or introduce a bias that not all people agree to. Leave that alone.
> 
> We need to focus on how to ensure we have law abiding citizens, how to write and enforce laws on this locally
> where it's coming from people affected and not top-down-govt, so that gun laws can be enforced consistently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss it is part of natural law, even written in the Bible that the Courts are going to be under SECULAR law and that's what they use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Emilynghiem,
> 
> Consider the following and always be mindful of the fallacy of _nunc pro tunc._
> 
> James Wilson, signer of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, the most active speaker at the Philadelphia convention with 168 speeches, one of the most active authors of clauses in the Constitution, Supreme Court justice from 1789-1798, the first law professor at University of Pennsylvania, wrote in his Lectures on Law, 1789-1791:
> 
> All law comes from God and there are four categories: Law eternal, law celestial, laws of nature, and laws communicated to us by reason and conscience and called natural; as promulgated by the Holy Scriptures, it has been called revealed.
> 
> Efficient cause of moral obligation of the eminent distinction between right and wrong and therefore the supreme law. It is revealed by our conscience, by our reason, and by the Holy Scriptures.
> 
> All laws, however, may be arranged in two different classes. 1) Divine. 2) Human...But it should always be remembered that this law, natural or revealed, made for men or for nations, flows from the same Divine source: it is the law of God. Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you Tennyson
> Again, this source already comes from the bias that
> * God's laws or spiritual laws come first and the govt or secular laws follow as a contract based on consent but don't impose
> vs
> * secular and govt laws are the public institutions that serve as default
> and "beliefs about God's laws" come second as optional as choice of the people, and these follow govt but don't impose
> 
> The "default" I find works is to include people of BOTH sets of beliefs, and let them express themselves.
> Treat those as equal and don't let either set A or set B impose on each other
> Find areas of agreement (which public policy can be based on)
> and stay away from areas where beliefs have to remain separated because they conflict.
> Then find ways, either through state or party or other private means or public if it can be agreed on,
> to accommodate those beliefs where people agree they are equally represented and protected,
> not excluded or discriminated against.
> 
> I'm perfectly fine with and appreciate the sources you cite.
> If other people agree to follow those, that's faster and even better.
> 
> But if they already believe in putting govt first, and don't think like
> we do that universal laws outside govt framework can be agreed on first,
> then they see this as imposing an outside belief system on their
> beliefs of starting with Govt as the default.  That's how they set up their priorities,
> and it's internally set like the mindset of nontheists who see the world
> in secular terms and not as a personified God creating the world and laws.
> 
> Do you understand that the belief system and entire mindset of the
> liberal secular approach does not set up the framework the same way,
> but sees this as a religious construct they don't believe in
> and thus govt cannot be abused to force it on them?
> 
> Do you understand they see it as optional to think that way,
> and they have such inherent right to believe and think their way,
> that many do not believe their way is an "optional belief"
> but is the default truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was not advocating; just adding a little historical context.
> 
> I am not sure that the word “bias” is an accurate description of James Wilson’s statements as they were the prevailing thoughts and the ideological concepts that formed the basis of our government and were consummated with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Keep in mind that the Constitution, the laws, etc. were not applicable to the people or the states, and Wilson was referring to the very limited power the federal government had. The people and their beliefs were governed by the most proximate government: their local and state governments. These were very responsive to the people and could be replaced quickly and easily to create the government the people can choose for themselves. This was federalism.
> 
> Expressing oneself was a fully functional state concept, not a federal concept. This is how the majority in a state or municipality could make their own religious accommodations. That is how Rhode Island was created.
> 
> The belief system and mindset of the liberal secular does not set-up the framework the same way etc. is readily addressed above at the state and local level. The great thing about the concept of the people being governed by the most proximate government, which is their local and state governments, is that it precludes a bitterly divided country such as the one we have now because federalism does not allow these divisive issue to have a national forum.
Click to expand...



??? Tennyson
I thought federalism was in support of a strong centralized govt and
the antifederalist was in support of keeping power on the level of states and people,
and not ceding this to federal authority. I thought the big fear of a central Constitution
was it would not be strong enough to check that tendency for the greater collective
power to start oppressing the local citizens and state sovereignty all over again.

That would be great if you are saying the correct way of teaching pro-federal govt
is actually what states rights activists are also saying. But then what was the big feud over if these agree???


----------



## Boss

emilynghiem said:


> So if we are going to get anywhere with respecting and protecting the God-based belief
> at the very least we need to agree to
> respect and protect the secular-govt-based belief system
> as having the right to exercise this on their own.



But I can't respect that because it's not true. Our government is not "secular-government-based" and never has been. It is unique and exceptional among governments. The foundation is our inalienable rights which come from our Creator and not man. It's fine if you choose not to believe in a Creator but it doesn't change where your freedom to have that belief came from. And that's the gist of the problem with the secular left, they want to strip God from government and claim we have a secular-based system which completely destroys the unique exceptionalism of our system and makes us just like many other forms of government which have failed. 

I am a non-religious Spiritualist who believes in a God more in line with Spinoza's. I fundamentally disagree with some Christian social conservatives who think we are supposed to impose Biblical laws on society. That said, I defend their right to hold those beliefs and lobby for them in the public square. Indeed, most (if not all) our laws are rooted in some religious dogmatic belief. This is why you see the 10 Commandments carved into the granite over the Supreme Court.


----------



## Tennyson

emilynghiem said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> I totally disagree with this on a fundamental basis. So-called "abortion rights" have nothing in common with our 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. The Constitution states very specifically that we have the inalienable right to own firearms. Nowhere does it say we have an inalienable right to kill the unborn. That is a manufactured right that doesn't exist and is not inalienable at all.
> 
> Our 2nd Amendment right is NOT about choice, it's about an inalienable right we have which can't be removed by man. We've seen all the usual arguments in this thread over what the framers meant about this or that but the bottom line remains, this was the #2 listed right in our bill of rights for a reason. It is fundamentally and vitally important to our freedom. Abortion is not and never has been.
> 
> Now, let's cut to the chase here... The REASON you have people arguing against the 2nd Amendment is because they are promoting a Socialist idea straight out of Marx's Communist Manifesto. Oh, I know the eyes are rolling... here he goes again... but this is the truth. Karl Marx spoke extensively of how it was essential to disarm the populace in order for the central authority to control the people more effectively. And if you listen to the leftists here, you see that they certainly understand this by the way they argue. They constantly attack the notion that the people would ever rise up and overthrow a tyrannic government as silly and ridiculous.
> 
> We don't need to argue that point with them, or any point, to be honest. It does not matter what the reasons are for our 2nd Amendment. It exists and it's inalienable. That's really the beginning and ending of the debate. Any arguments beyond that are superfluous. Now, as citizens of our respective states, we can outline parameters or rules for how our 2A rights are regulated. That is also a fundamental right we have to self-govern.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Boss
> 1. I am saying they are both political beliefs, and people want a choice in their beliefs
> 2. Of course, the status is different, because "right to bear arms" is WRITTEN into the Constitutional articles
> (and part of the FOUNDING Bill of Rights passed as a condition for ratifying the original Constitution),
> and others have pointed out "right to life" is found in writing in both the Constitutional articles and founding documents
> 3. Regardless the REASONS for people arguing against this or that
> "they do not BELIEVE" in the justifications by the other side.
> 
> You and I can cite Constitutional history and the meaning of court precedence all day and night
> (look at Tennyson and the thread on Gay marriage is not a constitutional right)
> and IT STILL DOESN'T CHANGE PEOPLE'S CORE BELIEFS
> 
> Boss it is part of natural law, even written in the Bible that the Courts are going to be under SECULAR law
> and that's what they use.
> 
> People are either designed in their spirit and minds to put God/church/people/private sector first as the default source
> (where people form agreements based on consent, and then the civil govt follows and reflect that as a social contract and cannot be in conflict)
> OR
> they use Govt "as the default" to establish "the collective will of the people" as secular public policy
> (and the church or any other religious difference like we are talking about is SECONDARY and optional under that
> but still has to comply with the default)
> 
> For example, when Christians wanted to protect "right to prayer" in schools, the most they could pass
> is "moment of silence" being recognized. (It has been pointed out before how individual students can pray but school administrators cannot lead or invoke group prayer and ask those present to join in praying in the name of God or Jesus, etc.)
> 
> So the Christians have to submit to SECULAR authority and trim out any bias or belief references
> that aren't accepted as whatever the "default" standard is.
> 
> We need to follow a similar process here.
> 
> 1. It's clear that when interpreting and applying the 2nd Amendment language on the right of the people to bear arms,
> the broader default interpretation of People is all citizens (and we can agree on LAW ABIDING citizens
> since I think we all also agree this law does NOT MEAN to give anyone the right to bear arms to commit crimes,
> because violating due process and right to life liberty or property of others still violates the Bill of Rights,
> and we agree the enumeration of laws does not give right to interpret ANY Amendment to violate any others)
> 
> 2. Then if people want to enforce an ADDITIONAL condition or restriction (such as Christians want an ADDITIONAL type of condition on group prayer or invoking God or Jesus specifically) then this belief that citizens bearing guns is restricted to state militia is a BELIEF that not all people share (just like not all people agree to pray in Jesus name).
> 
> We don't have to attack each other's beliefs to show which is the default and which is the added condition.
> 
> Then from there, whatever objections are going on, mostly focused on not letting criminals abuse the 2nd amendment to violate other rights of people protected other other amendments,
> we can address that without trying to impose or introduce a bias that not all people agree to. Leave that alone.
> 
> We need to focus on how to ensure we have law abiding citizens, how to write and enforce laws on this locally
> where it's coming from people affected and not top-down-govt, so that gun laws can be enforced consistently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss it is part of natural law, even written in the Bible that the Courts are going to be under SECULAR law and that's what they use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Emilynghiem,
> 
> Consider the following and always be mindful of the fallacy of _nunc pro tunc._
> 
> James Wilson, signer of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, the most active speaker at the Philadelphia convention with 168 speeches, one of the most active authors of clauses in the Constitution, Supreme Court justice from 1789-1798, the first law professor at University of Pennsylvania, wrote in his Lectures on Law, 1789-1791:
> 
> All law comes from God and there are four categories: Law eternal, law celestial, laws of nature, and laws communicated to us by reason and conscience and called natural; as promulgated by the Holy Scriptures, it has been called revealed.
> 
> Efficient cause of moral obligation of the eminent distinction between right and wrong and therefore the supreme law. It is revealed by our conscience, by our reason, and by the Holy Scriptures.
> 
> All laws, however, may be arranged in two different classes. 1) Divine. 2) Human...But it should always be remembered that this law, natural or revealed, made for men or for nations, flows from the same Divine source: it is the law of God. Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you Tennyson
> Again, this source already comes from the bias that
> * God's laws or spiritual laws come first and the govt or secular laws follow as a contract based on consent but don't impose
> vs
> * secular and govt laws are the public institutions that serve as default
> and "beliefs about God's laws" come second as optional as choice of the people, and these follow govt but don't impose
> 
> The "default" I find works is to include people of BOTH sets of beliefs, and let them express themselves.
> Treat those as equal and don't let either set A or set B impose on each other
> Find areas of agreement (which public policy can be based on)
> and stay away from areas where beliefs have to remain separated because they conflict.
> Then find ways, either through state or party or other private means or public if it can be agreed on,
> to accommodate those beliefs where people agree they are equally represented and protected,
> not excluded or discriminated against.
> 
> I'm perfectly fine with and appreciate the sources you cite.
> If other people agree to follow those, that's faster and even better.
> 
> But if they already believe in putting govt first, and don't think like
> we do that universal laws outside govt framework can be agreed on first,
> then they see this as imposing an outside belief system on their
> beliefs of starting with Govt as the default.  That's how they set up their priorities,
> and it's internally set like the mindset of nontheists who see the world
> in secular terms and not as a personified God creating the world and laws.
> 
> Do you understand that the belief system and entire mindset of the
> liberal secular approach does not set up the framework the same way,
> but sees this as a religious construct they don't believe in
> and thus govt cannot be abused to force it on them?
> 
> Do you understand they see it as optional to think that way,
> and they have such inherent right to believe and think their way,
> that many do not believe their way is an "optional belief"
> but is the default truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was not advocating; just adding a little historical context.
> 
> I am not sure that the word “bias” is an accurate description of James Wilson’s statements as they were the prevailing thoughts and the ideological concepts that formed the basis of our government and were consummated with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Keep in mind that the Constitution, the laws, etc. were not applicable to the people or the states, and Wilson was referring to the very limited power the federal government had. The people and their beliefs were governed by the most proximate government: their local and state governments. These were very responsive to the people and could be replaced quickly and easily to create the government the people can choose for themselves. This was federalism.
> 
> Expressing oneself was a fully functional state concept, not a federal concept. This is how the majority in a state or municipality could make their own religious accommodations. That is how Rhode Island was created.
> 
> The belief system and mindset of the liberal secular does not set-up the framework the same way etc. is readily addressed above at the state and local level. The great thing about the concept of the people being governed by the most proximate government, which is their local and state governments, is that it precludes a bitterly divided country such as the one we have now because federalism does not allow these divisive issue to have a national forum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ??? Tennyson
> I thought federalism was in support of a strong centralized govt and
> the antifederalist was in support of keeping power on the level of states and people,
> and not ceding this to federal authority. I thought the big fear of a central Constitution
> was it would not be strong enough to check that tendency for the greater collective
> power to start oppressing the local citizens and state sovereignty all over again.
> 
> That would be great if you are saying the correct way of teaching pro-federal govt
> is actually what states rights activists are also saying. But then what was the big feud over if these agree???
Click to expand...


Federalism was the design created by the framers that explicitly defined the respective spheres of federal authority and state authority. This was the cause and debate regarding Article I, Section 8, which are the enumerated powers of the federal government. James Wilson authored the necessary and proper clause and he explained it in this manner as well. The federalism created was the federal government had the powers enumerated and the states kept all the powers of sovereign states that they had under the Articles of Confederation.

The concept of “people” was not a factor. This was the states, via the deputies, creating a compact between the states and the federal government. The “people” were discussed in the context of the creation of a bill of rights after ratification of the Constitution.

The power to check the collective power was the Senate because it was created to represent the states and the Senators were not elected. This important power was destroyed with the Seventeenth Amendment.


----------



## Boss

emilynghiem said:


> I thought federalism was in support of a strong centralized govt and
> the antifederalist was in support of keeping power on the level of states and people,
> and not ceding this to federal authority. I thought the big fear of a central Constitution
> was it would not be strong enough to check that tendency for the greater collective
> power to start oppressing the local citizens and state sovereignty all over again.



You are sort of right and sort of confused at the same time. When we were debating Federalism vs. Anti-federalism, the arguments were BOTH opposed to a central federal power over everyone. Federalists argued that we could have a very limited small federal government which left most of our liberty to be determined by the states and people respectively. Anti-federalists feared exactly what has happened in history, that even a small federal government, limited in power, would eventually become a large centralized power enforcing it's will on society. 

Today, we have a different argument. The Federalists are still arguing for a small and limited federal authority where states and people decide most of their own parameters of liberty and we have Statists who believe in a large central authority. Ironically, even though Anti-federalists no longer exist, their arguments proved to be true... we simply couldn't maintain a small limited government over time because the nature of any government is to grow in power over the individual.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Vandalshandle said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the THIRD time, so why did they need to ban guns?  Don't be shy.  Don't be afraid to answer.  Just blurt it out.  You can do it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like something you would know about, not me. The only thing I have ever advocated banning were ammo cartridges so large that their only practical use was in assault weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The public cannot get "assault" weapons
> 
> The only thing civilians can buy are semiautomatic weapons which have been around since the mid 1800's.
> 
> Magazine size is a red herring
> 
> Just because my 9mm can hold a 17 round magazine doesn't mean I am going to shoot 17 people
> Just because a person had a 30 round magazine for a semiauto rifle doesn't mean he is going to shoot up a school
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...and just because North Korea has a nuclear bomb doesn't mean that they are going to use it, so we'll just let that pass without concern.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes because we all know a semi auto and a nuclear bomb are exactly alike
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will admit that you are right. if I see you walk into a movie theater with a semi-automatic weapon and a 50 round drum, I am just paranoid enough to suspect that you might be up to no good.
> 
> Silly me.
Click to expand...


And seriously what are the odds of that happening?

3 or 4 out of 350 million

That is not a compelling enough reason to deny law abiding people any size magazine for their weapons they want

People who own guns, follow every law and are responsible in their ownership are not responsible for the crimes of another


----------



## Skull Pilot

emilynghiem said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Armenians were an impoverished people, in a land where ownership of a cow and a couple of sheep meant that you were a wealthy man. In 1915, guns and ammunition were luxury items, in this part of the world, for anyone who was not in the business of being a highwayman for a living. In this part of the world, armies had just barely advanced beyond swordsmen on horseback.
> 
> 
> 
> For the THIRD time, so why did they need to ban guns?  Don't be shy.  Don't be afraid to answer.  Just blurt it out.  You can do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like something you would know about, not me. The only thing I have ever advocated banning were ammo cartridges so large that their only practical use was in assault weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The public cannot get "assault" weapons
> 
> The only thing civilians can buy are semiautomatic weapons which have been around since the mid 1800's.
> 
> Magazine size is a red herring
> 
> Just because my 9mm can hold a 17 round magazine doesn't mean I am going to shoot 17 people
> Just because a person had a 30 round magazine for a semiauto rifle doesn't mean he is going to shoot up a school
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...and just because North Korea has a nuclear bomb doesn't mean that they are going to use it, so we'll just let that pass without concern.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Skull Pilot and Vandalshandle
> The same way I would not take the 2nd Amendment out of context with the rest of the Bill of Rights,
> but interpret "right of people to bear arms" as "law abiding citizens" (meaning within the CONTEXT of
> defending laws not violating them, with respect to due process and not depriving anyone of rights
> to life liberty or property or other principles)
> 
> Why not enforce this condition with nuclear arms as well:
> that countries must also pledge to enforce those same basic rights and due process of laws,
> and in order to proactively interact with other countries,
> show a record of having diplomatically resolved conflicts and enforced laws by consensus,
> before using armed forces to police threats by other countries.
> 
> If all they have is a record of aggression and complaints of coercion or abuse,
> they'd have to go back and resolve those and restore good faith relations first,
> in order to establish a record of diplomatic peacekeeping to justify using arms for policing.
Click to expand...


We cannot force citizens in another country to do anything

And yes when I use the term gun owner I imply that they are legally eligible to have firearms

Unfortunately the people here who want to deny people the right to own guns don't make that distinction so to them a bunch of gang bangers with multiple felony convictions are included in their count of gun owners


----------



## emilynghiem

Boss said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought federalism was in support of a strong centralized govt and
> the antifederalist was in support of keeping power on the level of states and people,
> and not ceding this to federal authority. I thought the big fear of a central Constitution
> was it would not be strong enough to check that tendency for the greater collective
> power to start oppressing the local citizens and state sovereignty all over again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are sort of right and sort of confused at the same time. When we were debating Federalism vs. Anti-federalism, the arguments were BOTH opposed to a central federal power over everyone. Federalists argued that we could have a very limited small federal government which left most of our liberty to be determined by the states and people respectively. Anti-federalists feared exactly what has happened in history, that even a small federal government, limited in power, would eventually become a large centralized power enforcing it's will on society.
> 
> Today, we have a different argument. The Federalists are still arguing for a small and limited federal authority where states and people decide most of their own parameters of liberty and we have Statists who believe in a large central authority. Ironically, even though Anti-federalists no longer exist, their arguments proved to be true... we simply couldn't maintain a small limited government over time because the nature of any government is to grow in power over the individual.
Click to expand...


So Boss now there are three groups
1. Statists are the ones who WANT the power to grow on the federal level and even fight against enforcing limits on it
2. Federalists who argue we can manage a centralized govt are split between the "new anti-federalists" who still believe in the Constitution but fear the whole thing needs to be shut down and stopped vs. the Constitutonalists saying we can use the given system and restore the limitations (and the Statists saying we can keep the given system and don't need to enforce limitations)
3. anarchists and independents who don't believe in parties or Constitutional laws at all as being able to stop abuses

I think the Statists have taken over the position of anti-federalists
in being opposed to the Constitution as limited govt, but for the opposite reason.
Before, the anti-federalists didn't think it was strong enough to PREVENT big govt from dominating over individuals.
Today, the Statists don't want the Constitutional limits as "obstruction" to get in the way of this.

So the term you use for people who want central govt as the default authority
in charge of public programs and policies is STATIST. Is that correct?


----------



## Skull Pilot

rightwinger said:


> The second amendment was a quaint idea at the time, but is no longer needed for national defense
> 
> Let the states handle gun rights
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .



No.  The right to defend one's self family and property should not be left to the whim of the States. That is a right on par with every other right enumerated in the Constitution.

The government cannot and has no legal obligation to protect you, your family or your property


----------



## rightwinger

Skull Pilot said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The second amendment was a quaint idea at the time, but is no longer needed for national defense
> 
> Let the states handle gun rights
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  The right to defend one's self family and property should not be left to the whim of the States. That is a right on par with every other right enumerated in the Constitution.
> 
> The government cannot and has no legal obligation to protect you, your family or your property
Click to expand...


God bless America!

A country built on the rights of states to set there own rules. There is no need for Federal gun laws......Militias are obsolete

Let the states decide how much control they need over guns


----------



## Skull Pilot

rightwinger said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The second amendment was a quaint idea at the time, but is no longer needed for national defense
> 
> Let the states handle gun rights
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  The right to defend one's self family and property should not be left to the whim of the States. That is a right on par with every other right enumerated in the Constitution.
> 
> The government cannot and has no legal obligation to protect you, your family or your property
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God bless America!
> 
> A country built on the rights of states to set there own rules. There is no need for Federal gun laws......Militias are obsolete
> 
> Let the states decide how much control they need over guns
Click to expand...


Great so let's repeal the entire bill of rights and let the states handle all of it


----------



## rightwinger

Skull Pilot said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The second amendment was a quaint idea at the time, but is no longer needed for national defense
> 
> Let the states handle gun rights
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  The right to defend one's self family and property should not be left to the whim of the States. That is a right on par with every other right enumerated in the Constitution.
> 
> The government cannot and has no legal obligation to protect you, your family or your property
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God bless America!
> 
> A country built on the rights of states to set there own rules. There is no need for Federal gun laws......Militias are obsolete
> 
> Let the states decide how much control they need over guns
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great so let's repeal the entire bill of rights and let the states handle all of it
Click to expand...


Let's just drop the second and third amendments. They are not needed

States can more than handle it


----------



## Vandalshandle

Skull Pilot said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like something you would know about, not me. The only thing I have ever advocated banning were ammo cartridges so large that their only practical use was in assault weapons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The public cannot get "assault" weapons
> 
> The only thing civilians can buy are semiautomatic weapons which have been around since the mid 1800's.
> 
> Magazine size is a red herring
> 
> Just because my 9mm can hold a 17 round magazine doesn't mean I am going to shoot 17 people
> Just because a person had a 30 round magazine for a semiauto rifle doesn't mean he is going to shoot up a school
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...and just because North Korea has a nuclear bomb doesn't mean that they are going to use it, so we'll just let that pass without concern.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes because we all know a semi auto and a nuclear bomb are exactly alike
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will admit that you are right. if I see you walk into a movie theater with a semi-automatic weapon and a 50 round drum, I am just paranoid enough to suspect that you might be up to no good.
> 
> Silly me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And seriously what are the odds of that happening?
> 
> 3 or 4 out of 350 million
> 
> That is not a compelling enough reason to deny law abiding people any size magazine for their weapons they want
> 
> People who own guns, follow every law and are responsible in their ownership are not responsible for the crimes of another
Click to expand...


God forbid that I take away some yahoo's right to completely wipe out a Deer Crossing sign without his having to reload.


----------



## ding

rightwinger said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like something you would know about, not me. The only thing I have ever advocated banning were ammo cartridges so large that their only practical use was in assault weapons.
> 
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with the Armenians banning guns?  You said they had so few it didn't matter, right?  If that were true, why did they need to ban them?  Now do you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now about you wanting to ban high capacity magazines, do I understand you correctly that you want the army and police to have high capacity magazines but the people who the 2nd Amendment was meant to protect shouldn't?  In what bizzaro world does that make any sense at all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes....because I trust the army and police more than some survivalist nutcase
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess you haven't been watching the news much lately, lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes......I see 32,000 gun deaths a year thanks to our second amendment keeping us safe
Click to expand...

That's only because you believe suicides are gun deaths instead of suicides.  A sure sign of too much estrogen.  You may want to cut back on soy products in your diet.


----------



## ding

rightwinger said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I know.  It was that post which caused me to ask you the question if there were so few guns why did they need to ban them.  A question you have still not answered.  So why did they need to ban them?
> 
> 
> 
> I see no particular need to answer it twice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Turk government banned guns so that when they went door to door killing civilians they would meet miniumum resistance. End of story.   Of course our government wont do something like that, but who knows what we will have in 50 years or 100 from now. preserving second amendment rights today is preserving second amendment rights for future generations. remember , once something is gone it is much harder to get it back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK....let's play out your tyrannical US government going door to door killing people.
> They show up at your door in the middle of the night with night vision, armored personnel carriers, full body armor and a helicopter overhead
> 
> You going to shoot it out or just pee your pants?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For like the 20th time, an armed populace keeps the government in check so there won't be that need.  Why is this so hard for you to understand?  You keep making a logical fallacy argument.  Are you so fanatical in your beliefs that you have suspended all ability to use reason and logic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Repeating that nonsense does not make it true
> 
> Wasn't true in 1776, isn't true now
Click to expand...

No, what makes it true is that fact that it works.  An armed populace does keep the government in check.


----------



## ding

rightwinger said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The second amendment was a quaint idea at the time, but is no longer needed for national defense
> 
> Let the states handle gun rights
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  The right to defend one's self family and property should not be left to the whim of the States. That is a right on par with every other right enumerated in the Constitution.
> 
> The government cannot and has no legal obligation to protect you, your family or your property
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God bless America!
> 
> A country built on the rights of states to set there own rules. There is no need for Federal gun laws......Militias are obsolete
> 
> Let the states decide how much control they need over guns
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great so let's repeal the entire bill of rights and let the states handle all of it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's just drop the second and third amendments. They are not needed
> 
> States can more than handle it
Click to expand...

Yep, let's let the states handle gay marriage and abortions too.


----------



## ding

Vandalshandle said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The public cannot get "assault" weapons
> 
> The only thing civilians can buy are semiautomatic weapons which have been around since the mid 1800's.
> 
> Magazine size is a red herring
> 
> Just because my 9mm can hold a 17 round magazine doesn't mean I am going to shoot 17 people
> Just because a person had a 30 round magazine for a semiauto rifle doesn't mean he is going to shoot up a school
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and just because North Korea has a nuclear bomb doesn't mean that they are going to use it, so we'll just let that pass without concern.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes because we all know a semi auto and a nuclear bomb are exactly alike
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will admit that you are right. if I see you walk into a movie theater with a semi-automatic weapon and a 50 round drum, I am just paranoid enough to suspect that you might be up to no good.
> 
> Silly me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And seriously what are the odds of that happening?
> 
> 3 or 4 out of 350 million
> 
> That is not a compelling enough reason to deny law abiding people any size magazine for their weapons they want
> 
> People who own guns, follow every law and are responsible in their ownership are not responsible for the crimes of another
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God forbid that I take away some yahoo's right to completely wipe out a Deer Crossing sign without his having to reload.
Click to expand...

Yep... God forbid.  And God forbid that tails don't wag dogs too.


----------



## ding

Vandalshandle said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now about you wanting to ban high capacity magazines, do I understand you correctly that you want the army and police to have high capacity magazines but the people who the 2nd Amendment was meant to protect shouldn't?  In what bizzaro world does that make any sense at all?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ding, if in your fantasy world, you are going to become an urban freedom fighter and overcome the combined army, navy and air force of the United States government, then you need to start saving up to buy your own BatTank, BatHelicopter, and BatGunboat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An armed populace is a deterrent against a tyrannical government and it has worked.
> 
> deterrent; a thing that discourages or is intended to discourage someone from doing something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The government is terrified of you and your 1911.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To be fair... it does have pearl handles.  Besides I like MY chance better with a gun rather than without a gun.  Guns aren't for everyone.  A gun may not be for you.  Some women and effeminate men don't have the hand strength to work the slide.   Some women and effeminate men are scared of loud noises.  At the end of the day, I fully respect your right to go into battle unarmed and unable to protect any of your loved ones.  I won't look at you as any less of a man.  I promise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Common, Ding, no way you can be 55 years old. Are you going to beat me up at recess?
Click to expand...

I probably already did when we were kids.  I did that to bullies a lot when I was younger.  Yes, I'm 55.  Sicilians have great genes and lots of guns too.


----------



## rightwinger

ding said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with the Armenians banning guns?  You said they had so few it didn't matter, right?  If that were true, why did they need to ban them?  Now do you understand?
> 
> 
> 
> Now about you wanting to ban high capacity magazines, do I understand you correctly that you want the army and police to have high capacity magazines but the people who the 2nd Amendment was meant to protect shouldn't?  In what bizzaro world does that make any sense at all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes....because I trust the army and police more than some survivalist nutcase
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess you haven't been watching the news much lately, lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes......I see 32,000 gun deaths a year thanks to our second amendment keeping us safe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's only because you believe suicides are gun deaths instead of suicides.  A sure sign of too much estrogen.  You may want to cut back on soy products in your diet.
Click to expand...

Dead is dead.....Boom
Brains all over the place

Thank God for the second amendment


----------



## rightwinger

ding said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see no particular need to answer it twice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Turk government banned guns so that when they went door to door killing civilians they would meet miniumum resistance. End of story.   Of course our government wont do something like that, but who knows what we will have in 50 years or 100 from now. preserving second amendment rights today is preserving second amendment rights for future generations. remember , once something is gone it is much harder to get it back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK....let's play out your tyrannical US government going door to door killing people.
> They show up at your door in the middle of the night with night vision, armored personnel carriers, full body armor and a helicopter overhead
> 
> You going to shoot it out or just pee your pants?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For like the 20th time, an armed populace keeps the government in check so there won't be that need.  Why is this so hard for you to understand?  You keep making a logical fallacy argument.  Are you so fanatical in your beliefs that you have suspended all ability to use reason and logic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Repeating that nonsense does not make it true
> 
> Wasn't true in 1776, isn't true now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, what makes it true is that fact that it works.  An armed populace does keep the government in check.
Click to expand...

An armed populace kills each other


----------



## ding

Vandalshandle said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the THIRD time, so why did they need to ban guns?  Don't be shy.  Don't be afraid to answer.  Just blurt it out.  You can do it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like something you would know about, not me. The only thing I have ever advocated banning were ammo cartridges so large that their only practical use was in assault weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The public cannot get "assault" weapons
> 
> The only thing civilians can buy are semiautomatic weapons which have been around since the mid 1800's.
> 
> Magazine size is a red herring
> 
> Just because my 9mm can hold a 17 round magazine doesn't mean I am going to shoot 17 people
> Just because a person had a 30 round magazine for a semiauto rifle doesn't mean he is going to shoot up a school
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...and just because North Korea has a nuclear bomb doesn't mean that they are going to use it, so we'll just let that pass without concern.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes because we all know a semi auto and a nuclear bomb are exactly alike
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will admit that you are right. if I see you walk into a movie theater with a semi-automatic weapon and a 50 round drum, I am just paranoid enough to suspect that you might be up to no good.
> 
> Silly me.
Click to expand...

Me too.  If I see you with that I'll be glad I have my Kimber Ultra Carry on me.  You on the other hand will be thinking that you should have worn brown pants.


----------



## ding

rightwinger said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now about you wanting to ban high capacity magazines, do I understand you correctly that you want the army and police to have high capacity magazines but the people who the 2nd Amendment was meant to protect shouldn't?  In what bizzaro world does that make any sense at all?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes....because I trust the army and police more than some survivalist nutcase
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess you haven't been watching the news much lately, lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes......I see 32,000 gun deaths a year thanks to our second amendment keeping us safe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's only because you believe suicides are gun deaths instead of suicides.  A sure sign of too much estrogen.  You may want to cut back on soy products in your diet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dead is dead.....Boom
> Brains all over the place
> 
> Thank God for the second amendment
Click to expand...

Everyone has to die sooner or later.  Being emotional won't change that.


----------



## rightwinger

ding said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like something you would know about, not me. The only thing I have ever advocated banning were ammo cartridges so large that their only practical use was in assault weapons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The public cannot get "assault" weapons
> 
> The only thing civilians can buy are semiautomatic weapons which have been around since the mid 1800's.
> 
> Magazine size is a red herring
> 
> Just because my 9mm can hold a 17 round magazine doesn't mean I am going to shoot 17 people
> Just because a person had a 30 round magazine for a semiauto rifle doesn't mean he is going to shoot up a school
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...and just because North Korea has a nuclear bomb doesn't mean that they are going to use it, so we'll just let that pass without concern.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes because we all know a semi auto and a nuclear bomb are exactly alike
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will admit that you are right. if I see you walk into a movie theater with a semi-automatic weapon and a 50 round drum, I am just paranoid enough to suspect that you might be up to no good.
> 
> Silly me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Me too.  If I see you with that I'll be glad I have my Kimber Ultra Carry on me.  You on the other hand will be thinking that you should have worn brown pants.
Click to expand...

You'll shoot your eye out


----------



## miketx

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Nowhere in the history, text, or case law of the Second Amendment will one find any reference to the Second Amendment 'trumping' the First Amendment, or authorizing the Second Amendment to abridge the First Amendment right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances through either the political process or the judicial process.
> 
> That a minority of citizens might subjectively and in error perceive government to have become 'tyrannical' in no manner 'justifies' that minority to 'take up arms' against a government lawfully sanctioned by a majority of the people, where government is indeed functioning in accordance with the Constitution and its case law.
> 
> There must first be consensus and agreement among the people through the political and democratic process as to what constitutes actual 'tyranny,' and that, consistent with that consensus, the government is in fact 'tyrannical' - then and only then might 'taking up arms' be warranted and lawful.


STFU liar.


----------



## ding

rightwinger said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Turk government banned guns so that when they went door to door killing civilians they would meet miniumum resistance. End of story.   Of course our government wont do something like that, but who knows what we will have in 50 years or 100 from now. preserving second amendment rights today is preserving second amendment rights for future generations. remember , once something is gone it is much harder to get it back.
> 
> 
> 
> OK....let's play out your tyrannical US government going door to door killing people.
> They show up at your door in the middle of the night with night vision, armored personnel carriers, full body armor and a helicopter overhead
> 
> You going to shoot it out or just pee your pants?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For like the 20th time, an armed populace keeps the government in check so there won't be that need.  Why is this so hard for you to understand?  You keep making a logical fallacy argument.  Are you so fanatical in your beliefs that you have suspended all ability to use reason and logic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Repeating that nonsense does not make it true
> 
> Wasn't true in 1776, isn't true now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, what makes it true is that fact that it works.  An armed populace does keep the government in check.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An armed populace kills each other
Click to expand...

So do unarmed populaces.  According to the FBI knives, fists and other weapons besides firearms accounted for almost 1/3 of all homicides in 2014.


----------



## ding

rightwinger said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The public cannot get "assault" weapons
> 
> The only thing civilians can buy are semiautomatic weapons which have been around since the mid 1800's.
> 
> Magazine size is a red herring
> 
> Just because my 9mm can hold a 17 round magazine doesn't mean I am going to shoot 17 people
> Just because a person had a 30 round magazine for a semiauto rifle doesn't mean he is going to shoot up a school
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and just because North Korea has a nuclear bomb doesn't mean that they are going to use it, so we'll just let that pass without concern.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes because we all know a semi auto and a nuclear bomb are exactly alike
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will admit that you are right. if I see you walk into a movie theater with a semi-automatic weapon and a 50 round drum, I am just paranoid enough to suspect that you might be up to no good.
> 
> Silly me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Me too.  If I see you with that I'll be glad I have my Kimber Ultra Carry on me.  You on the other hand will be thinking that you should have worn brown pants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You'll shoot your eye out
Click to expand...

Maybe.  Maybe not.  But I still like my chances better with a gun rather than without a gun.  I suggest you invest in brown pants.


----------



## ding

rightwinger said:


> The second amendment was a quaint idea at the time, but is no longer needed for national defense
> 
> Let the states handle gun rights
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .


Sure, and let states handle gay marriage, transsexual bathrooms and abortions.


----------



## rightwinger

ding said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK....let's play out your tyrannical US government going door to door killing people.
> They show up at your door in the middle of the night with night vision, armored personnel carriers, full body armor and a helicopter overhead
> 
> You going to shoot it out or just pee your pants?
> 
> 
> 
> For like the 20th time, an armed populace keeps the government in check so there won't be that need.  Why is this so hard for you to understand?  You keep making a logical fallacy argument.  Are you so fanatical in your beliefs that you have suspended all ability to use reason and logic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Repeating that nonsense does not make it true
> 
> Wasn't true in 1776, isn't true now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, what makes it true is that fact that it works.  An armed populace does keep the government in check.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An armed populace kills each other
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So do unarmed populaces.  According to the FBI knives, fists and other weapons besides firearms accounted for almost 1/3 of all homicides in 2014.
Click to expand...

And the other 2/3?????

LOL


----------



## ding

rightwinger said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The second amendment was a quaint idea at the time, but is no longer needed for national defense
> 
> Let the states handle gun rights
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  The right to defend one's self family and property should not be left to the whim of the States. That is a right on par with every other right enumerated in the Constitution.
> 
> The government cannot and has no legal obligation to protect you, your family or your property
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God bless America!
> 
> A country built on the rights of states to set there own rules. There is no need for Federal gun laws......Militias are obsolete
> 
> Let the states decide how much control they need over guns
Click to expand...

And let them decide how much control they need over abortions, gay marriage and transsexual bathrooms.


----------



## ding

rightwinger said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> For like the 20th time, an armed populace keeps the government in check so there won't be that need.  Why is this so hard for you to understand?  You keep making a logical fallacy argument.  Are you so fanatical in your beliefs that you have suspended all ability to use reason and logic?
> 
> 
> 
> Repeating that nonsense does not make it true
> 
> Wasn't true in 1776, isn't true now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, what makes it true is that fact that it works.  An armed populace does keep the government in check.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An armed populace kills each other
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So do unarmed populaces.  According to the FBI knives, fists and other weapons besides firearms accounted for almost 1/3 of all homicides in 2014.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the other 2/3?????
> 
> LOL
Click to expand...

The other 8000 were firearm related.  Of which 46% were committed by black Democrats.


----------



## rightwinger

ding said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Repeating that nonsense does not make it true
> 
> Wasn't true in 1776, isn't true now
> 
> 
> 
> No, what makes it true is that fact that it works.  An armed populace does keep the government in check.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An armed populace kills each other
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So do unarmed populaces.  According to the FBI knives, fists and other weapons besides firearms accounted for almost 1/3 of all homicides in 2014.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the other 2/3?????
> 
> LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The other 8000 were firearm related.  Of which 46% were committed by black Democrats.
Click to expand...


Come on...you can say it

NEGROES


----------



## ding

rightwinger said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, what makes it true is that fact that it works.  An armed populace does keep the government in check.
> 
> 
> 
> An armed populace kills each other
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So do unarmed populaces.  According to the FBI knives, fists and other weapons besides firearms accounted for almost 1/3 of all homicides in 2014.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the other 2/3?????
> 
> LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The other 8000 were firearm related.  Of which 46% were committed by black Democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Come on...you can say it
> 
> NEGROES
Click to expand...

National Black Republican Association calls on Democrat Party to apologize for racism


----------



## rightwinger

ding said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> An armed populace kills each other
> 
> 
> 
> So do unarmed populaces.  According to the FBI knives, fists and other weapons besides firearms accounted for almost 1/3 of all homicides in 2014.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the other 2/3?????
> 
> LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The other 8000 were firearm related.  Of which 46% were committed by black Democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Come on...you can say it
> 
> NEGROES
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> National Black Republican Association calls on Democrat Party to apologize for racism
Click to expand...

Still trying to pass off a North/South issue as political...

How pathetic


----------



## ding

rightwinger said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> So do unarmed populaces.  According to the FBI knives, fists and other weapons besides firearms accounted for almost 1/3 of all homicides in 2014.
> 
> 
> 
> And the other 2/3?????
> 
> LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The other 8000 were firearm related.  Of which 46% were committed by black Democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Come on...you can say it
> 
> NEGROES
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> National Black Republican Association calls on Democrat Party to apologize for racism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still trying to pass off a North/South issue as political...
> 
> How pathetic
Click to expand...

The Racist Roots of Gun Control


----------



## rightwinger

ding said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the other 2/3?????
> 
> LOL
> 
> 
> 
> The other 8000 were firearm related.  Of which 46% were committed by black Democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Come on...you can say it
> 
> NEGROES
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> National Black Republican Association calls on Democrat Party to apologize for racism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still trying to pass off a North/South issue as political...
> 
> How pathetic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Racist Roots of Gun Control
Click to expand...

More pathetic propaganda

Why don't you tell us more about them Negroes?


----------



## ding

rightwinger said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The other 8000 were firearm related.  Of which 46% were committed by black Democrats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Come on...you can say it
> 
> NEGROES
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> National Black Republican Association calls on Democrat Party to apologize for racism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still trying to pass off a North/South issue as political...
> 
> How pathetic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Racist Roots of Gun Control
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More pathetic propaganda
> 
> Why don't you tell us more about them Negroes?
Click to expand...

Gun Control Is “Racist”?


----------



## ding

The Second Amendment: The Framers' Intentions

by Daniel J. Schultz

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution states: "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." The reference to a "well regulated" militia, probably conjures up a connotation at odds with the meaning intended by the Framers. In today's English, the term "well regulated" probably implies heavy and intense government regulation. However, that conclusion is erroneous.

The words "well regulated" had a far different meaning at the time the Second Amendment was drafted. In the context of the Constitution's provisions for Congressional power over certain aspects of the militia, and in the context of the Framers' definition of "militia," government regulation was not the intended meaning. Rather, the term meant only what it says, that the necessary militia be well regulated, but not by the national government.

To determine the meaning of the Constitution, one must start with the words of the Constitution itself. If the meaning is plain, that meaning controls. To ascertain the meaning of the term "well regulated" as it was used in the Second Amendment, it is necessary to begin with the purpose of the Second Amendment itself. The overriding purpose of the Framers in guaranteeing the right of the people to keep and bear arms was as a check on the standing army, which the Constitution gave the Congress the power to "raise and support."

As Noah Webster put it in a pamphlet urging ratification of the Constitution, "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe." George Mason remarked to his Virginia delegates regarding the colonies' recent experience with Britain, in which the Monarch's goal had been "to disarm the people; that [that] . . . was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." A widely reprinted article by Tench Coxe, an ally and correspondent of James Madison, described the Second Amendment's overriding goal as a check upon the national government's standing army: As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.

Thus, the well regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state was a militia that might someday fight against a standing army raised and supported by a tyrannical national government. Obviously, for that reason, the Framers did not say "A Militia well regulated by the Congress, being necessary to the security of a free State" -- because a militia so regulated might not be separate enough from, or free enough from, the national government, in the sense of both physical and operational control, to preserve the "security of a free State."

It is also helpful to contemplate the overriding purpose and object of the Bill of Rights in general. To secure ratification of the Constitution, the Federalists, urging passage of the Constitution by the States had committed themselves to the addition of the Bill of Rights, to serve as "further guards for private rights." In that regard, the first ten amendments to the Constitution were designed to be a series of "shall nots," telling the new national government again, in no uncertain terms, where it could not tread.

It would be incongruous to suppose or suggest the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, which were proscriptions on the powers of the national government, simultaneously acted as a grant of power to the national government. Similarly, as to the term "well regulated," it would make no sense to suggest this referred to a grant of "regulation" power to the government (national or state), when the entire purpose of the Bill of Rights was to both declare individual rights and tell the national government where the scope of its enumerated powers ended.

In keeping with the intent and purpose of the Bill of Rights both of declaring individual rights and proscribing the powers of the national government, the use and meaning of the term "Militia" in the Second Amendment, which needs to be "well regulated," helps explain what "well regulated" meant. When the Constitution was ratified, the Framers unanimously believed that the "militia" included all of the people capable of bearing arms.

George Mason, one of the Virginians who refused to sign the Constitution because it lacked a Bill of Rights, said: "Who are the Militia? They consist now of the whole people." Likewise, the Federal Farmer, one of the most important Anti-Federalist opponents of the Constitution, referred to a "militia, when properly formed, [as] in fact the people themselves." The list goes on and on.

By contrast, nowhere is to be found a contemporaneous definition of the militia, by any of the Framers, as anything other than the "whole body of the people." Indeed, as one commentator said, the notion that the Framers intended the Second Amendment to protect the "collective" right of the states to maintain militias rather than the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms, "remains one of the most closely guarded secrets of the eighteenth century, for no known writing surviving from the period between 1787 and 1791 states such a thesis."

Furthermore, returning to the text of the Second Amendment itself, the right to keep and bear arms is expressly retained by "the people," not the states. Recently the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed this view, finding that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right held by the "people," -- a "term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution," specifically the Preamble and the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Thus, the term "well regulated" ought to be considered in the context of the noun it modifies, the people themselves, the militia(s).

The above analysis leads us finally to the term "well regulated." What did these two words mean at the time of ratification? Were they commonly used to refer to a governmental bureaucracy as we know it today, with countless rules and regulations and inspectors, or something quite different? We begin this analysis by examining how the term "regulate" was used elsewhere in the Constitution. In every other instance where the term "regulate" is used, or regulations are referred to, the Constitution specifies who is to do the regulating and what is being "regulated." However, in the Second Amendment, the Framers chose only to use the term "well regulated" to describe a militia and chose not to define who or what would regulate it.

It is also important to note that the Framers' chose to use the indefinite article "a" to refer to the militia, rather than the definite article "the." This choice suggests that the Framers were not referring to any particular well regulated militia but, instead, only to the concept that well regulated militias, made up of citizens bearing arms, were necessary to secure a free State. Thus, the Framers chose not to explicitly define who, or what, would regulate the militias, nor what such regulation would consist of, nor how the regulation was to be accomplished.

This comparison of the Framers' use of the term "well regulated" in the Second Amendment, and the words "regulate" and "regulation" elsewhere in the Constitution, clarifies the meaning of that term in reference to its object, namely, the Militia. There is no doubt the Framers understood that the term "militia" had multiple meanings. First, the Framers understood all of the people to be part of the unorganized militia. The unorganized militia members, "the people," had the right to keep and bear arms. They could, individually, or in concert, "well regulate" themselves; that is, they could train to shoot accurately and to learn the basics of military tactics.

This interpretation is in keeping with English usage of the time, which included within the meaning of the verb "regulate" the concept of self- regulation or self-control (as it does still to this day). The concept that the people retained the right to self-regulate their local militia groups (or regulate themselves as individual militia members) is entirely consistent with the Framers' use of the indefinite article "a" in the phrase "A well regulated Militia."

This concept of the people's self-regulation, that is, non-governmental regulation, is also in keeping with the limited grant of power to Congress "for calling forth" the militia for only certain, limited purposes, to "provide for" the militia only certain limited control and equipment, and the limited grant of power to the President regarding the militia, who only serves as Commander in Chief of that portion of the militia called into the actual service of the nation. The "well regula[tion]" of the militia set forth in the Second Amendment was apart from that control over the militia exercised by Congress and the President, which extended only to that part of the militia called into actual service of the Union. Thus, "well regula[tion]" referred to something else. Since the fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, it would seem the words "well regulated" referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia(s) have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government's standing army.

This view is confirmed by Alexander Hamilton's observation, in The Federalist, No. 29, regarding the people's militias ability to be a match for a standing army: " . . . but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights . . . ."

It is an absolute truism that law-abiding, armed citizens pose no threat to other law-abiding citizens. The Framers' writings show they also believed this. As we have seen, the Framers understood that "well regulated" militias, that is, armed citizens, ready to form militias that would be well trained, self-regulated and disciplined, would pose no threat to their fellow citizens, but would, indeed, help to "insure domestic Tranquility" and "provide for the common defence."

ENDNOTES

1. In constitutional or statutory construction, language should always be accorded its plain meaning. See, e.g., Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. (1 Wheat.) 304, 326 (1816).

2. "On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 32.

3. "The Congress shall have Power . . . To raise and support Armies . . . ." U.S. Const., Article I, Section 8, cl. 12.

4. Senate Subcommittee On The Constitution Of The Comm. On The Judiciary, 97th Cong., 2d Sess., The Right To Keep And Bear Arms (Comm. Print 1982), at 5.

5. 3 J. Elliot, Debates In The Several State Conventions 380 (2d ed. 1836).

6. Originally published under the pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian," these "Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution" first appeared in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789, at 2, col. 1. They were reprinted by the New York Packet, June 23, 1789, at 2, cols. 1-2, and by the Boston Centennial, July 4, 1789, at 1, col. 2. The U.S. Supreme Court, in U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 83 L. Ed. 2d 1206, 59 S. Ct. 816 (1939), noted that the debates in the Constitutional Convention, the history and legislation of the colonies and states, and the writings of approved commentators showed that the militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense -- a body enrolled for military discipline.

7. 11 Papers Of James Madison 307 (R. Rutland & C. Hobson ed. 1977) (letter of Oct. 20, 1788, from Madison to Edmund Pendleton)(emphasis added).

8. An examination of the other nine amendments of the Bill of Rights shows that they were designed, like the Second Amendment, to declare rights retained by the people (1-9), or the States (10), and to provide a clear list of powers not given to the national government: "Congress shall make no law . . . ." (Amendment I); "No soldier shall . . . ." (Amendment III); "The right of the people . . . shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue . . . ." (Amendment IV); "No person shall . . .; nor shall any person . . .; nor shall private property be taken . . . ." (Amendment V); "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy . . . ." (Amendment VI); "In Suits at common law . . . the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States . . . ." (Amendment VII); "Excessive bail shall not be required . . . ." (Amendment VIII); "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." (Amendment IX); "The Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." (Amendment X).

9. 3 J. Elliot, Debates In The General State Conventions 425 (3d ed. 1937) (statement of George Mason, June 14, 1788), reprinted in Levinson, The Embarassing Second Amendment, 99 Yale L. Rev. 637, 647 (1989). See supra note 6 and accompanying text.

10. Letters From The Federal Farmer To The Republican 123 (W. Bennet ed. 1978) (ascribed to Richard Henry Lee), reprinted in Levinson, supra note 9, at 647. See supra note 6 and accompanying text.

11. S. Halbrook, That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right, p. 83 (The Independent Institute, 1984).

12. U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 265 (1990) ("The Second Amendment protects 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms'....").

13. "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of choosing Senators." (Article I, Section 4); "The Congress shall have power . . . To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes . . . ." (Article I, Section 8, cl. 3); "The Congress shall have power . . . To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures . . . ." (Article I, Section 8, cl. 5); "No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another." (Article I, Section 9); "In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." (Article III, Section 2, cl. 2); "No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due." (Article IV, Section 2, cl. 3); "The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular state." (Article IV, Section 3, cl. 2).

14. See supra, notes 6, 9 and 10 and accompanying text.

15. The Oxford English Dictionary gives the following examples of usage for the term "well regulated": 1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us . . . well-regulated Appetites, and worthy Inclinations." 1714: "The practice of all well regulated courts of justice in the world." 1812: "The equation of time . . . is the adjustment of the difference of time, as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial." 1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Major." 1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding." 1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well- regulated American embryo city." One definition of the word "well" in the Oxford English Dictionary is "satisfactorily in respect of conduct or action." One of The Oxford English Dictionary definitions for the term "regulated" is "b. Of troops: Properly disciplined." The one example of usage is: "1690: Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 'We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.'" The Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition (Clarendon Press, Oxford 1989).

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 . . . ." U. S. Const., Article I, Section 8, cl. 15.

17. "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 . . . ." U.S. Const., Article I, Section 8, cl. 16.

18. "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States, when called into the actual service of the United States . . . ." U.S. Const., Article II, Section 2, cl. 1.

19. U.S. Const., Preamble. 
-----
from: The "Well Regulated" Militia of the Second Amendment: An Examination of the Framers' Intentions, THE LIBERTY POLE V.II, No.2, The Official Publication of The Lawyer's Second Amendment Society.

Daniel J. Schultz is a practicing attorney in Los Angeles and President of LSAS, a nationwide network of pro-right to keep and bear arms attorneys. Contact the LSAS at (818)734-3066 or 18034 Ventura Boulevard, #329, Encino, CA 91316.

-----
Brought to you by - The 'Lectric Law Library
The Net's Finest Legal Resource For Legal Pros & Laypeople Alike.
Free Legal Forms & Law Dictionary | The 'Lectric Law Library


----------



## ding

According to the FBI's statistics on Crime, in 2014 murders by rifles was 0.12 persons per 100,000 people.


----------



## rightwinger

ding said:


> According to the FBI's statistics on Crime, in 2014 murders by rifles was 0.12 persons per 100,000 people.


OK. Let's just ban handguns


----------



## ding

rightwinger said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to the FBI's statistics on Crime, in 2014 murders by rifles was 0.12 persons per 100,000 people.
> 
> 
> 
> OK. Let's just ban handguns
Click to expand...

I thought you said you didn't want to ban guns at all?


----------



## Vandalshandle

RW,
Give up. Ding saw a Clint Eastwood movie when he was growing up, and it changed his life forever. He has been talking to empty chairs, and trying to outdraw himself in the mirror, ever since.


----------



## ding

Vandalshandle said:


> RW,
> Give up. Ding saw a Clint Eastwood movie when he was growing up, and it changed his life forever. He has been talking to empty chairs, and trying to outdraw himself in the mirror, ever since.


Why should I give up?  That makes no sense at all.   I'm winning.  Oh... you are telling your modern liberal amigo to give up.  Sure, that makes total sense.  Not only am I making him look foolish, he is giving me a platform to state the self evident truth that the 2nd Amendment was written as a last check against tyranny.  That the people are the militia.  That the people have the right to own and possess guns.  That well regulated does not mean regulations.  That well regulated means to be in proper working order.  And that we won't need to rebel against our government because the mere act of an armed populace acts as a deterrent against a tyrannical government.


----------



## frigidweirdo

ding said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Blacks committed 4 times the per capita murders with guns than the national average.  If blacks had just committed murders at the rate of the national average, our gun death rate would have dropped from 2.67 murders per 100,000 persons to 1.76 murders per 100,000 persons.
> 
> So when liberals talk about taking guns away, that is code for taking guns away from blacks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then again blacks are far more likely to be in poverty too. White people in poverty are more likely to use guns in crime, as are black people. But then it's easy to just take one statistic and float it around without looking at the whole situation, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My goodness.  One statistic.   You need to go back and review the FBI's data, bro.  It's that way across all of the violent crime types and has been that way ever since the FBI started compiling the data.  The bottom line is that American's are not violent.  Certain segments of America is, and since you are using our total statistics to inform your opinion, your opinion is being skewed by the segment which is skewing the data.  Like I said, rather than worrying about guns, you just might to want to deal with the real root cause of the problem.
> 
> Blaming poverty is an excuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, blaming poverty isn't an excuse. I've actually gone and broken down violent crime statistics by areas of a city based on poverty levels and found that actually poverty levels and crime often go hand in hand.
> 
> The problem is getting those detailed statistics. The stats I used were from London because I could get all of these statistics, for poverty levels, for income levels, for numbers of black people, Asian people, white people etc, and I could get crime statistics for each of this, at the local level, not at city level.
> 
> You have not used any evidence at all. You're just throwing things at me and hoping they stick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It sure sounds like an excuse, amigo.  You are literally saying that because someone is poor they have a propensity to rape, assault or murder people?  Get real.  There are tons of crime statistic from the FBI and they all show the same thing.  For every type of violent crime, blacks are skewing the numbers.  If we remove that segment, then the per capita numbers drop significantly.  I have a correlation for you... voting for Democrats leads to higher crime rates.
Click to expand...


Sounds like an excuse because you haven't taken the time to figure things out.

You said because they're poor, they're more likely to rape and commit crime. I see it the other way.

I see certain types of personality, people with lower IQs, etc are more likely to be in poverty. People with mental problems are more likely to be in poverty. I've seen this at first hand and seen how mental problems prevent people being able to do well in their job simply because they'll rub the boss the wrong way all the time. 

Also, I can point to areas of poverty having higher levels of crime etc. 

You say blacks are skewing the numbers because you've taken a very small view of what there is. You've not presented a single statistic, let alone a comprehensive study of crime statistics, to tell me this. When I get time, possibly tomorrow, I'll try and show you what I found out about London. 

Yeah, you have lots of correlations, they often mean nothing much. Hey, if only men voted, Trump would walk this election. If only women voted, Hillary would walk this election. Says what? Nothing much. You throw stats at something without understand the issues and you get nothing.


----------



## frigidweirdo

ding said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And having conveniently ignored other genocides, like, oh, the US genocide against the native peoples, where the Native peoples had guns and the US had even more guns.
> 
> There have been plenty of genocides out there, picking and choosing what you want and then presenting it is poor logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the US government had a big campaign to disarm native Americans. Can you guess why?   but armed resistance by western tribes did manage to get them the FEW concessions they did get. They forced them out of the more powerful US government by their resistance. Unfortunantly , after they were put on reservations they were
> basicaly lied to and screwed over.   The wounded knee massacre happened during one of those dissarmament forays.  Also, a very high percentage died from disease.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course, they were basically at war, surely the US tried to disarm anyone they were at war with.
> 
> Armed resistance got them what? A few concessions, that's saying that no one gets concessions unless they have guns? Rubbish.
> 
> Your argument is still as weak as water.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean YOU believe the founding fathers argument is weaker than water.  I disagree.
Click to expand...


No, I don't mean that at all.


----------



## Vandalshandle

ding said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> RW,
> Give up. Ding saw a Clint Eastwood movie when he was growing up, and it changed his life forever. He has been talking to empty chairs, and trying to outdraw himself in the mirror, ever since.
> 
> 
> 
> Why should I give up?  That makes no sense at all.   I'm winning.  Oh... you are telling your modern liberal amigo to give up.  Sure, that makes total sense.  Not only am I making him look foolish, he is giving me a platform to state the self evident truth that the 2nd Amendment was written as a last check against tyranny.
Click to expand...


It is already too late, in Texas. The military took control of all the state from El Paso to Lubbock, and confiscated all their weapons during Jade Helm. You never heard about it, because there is very little internet connection out there.

Be prepared. When Hillary is elected, your town may be next.....


----------



## ding

frigidweirdo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And having conveniently ignored other genocides, like, oh, the US genocide against the native peoples, where the Native peoples had guns and the US had even more guns.
> 
> There have been plenty of genocides out there, picking and choosing what you want and then presenting it is poor logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the US government had a big campaign to disarm native Americans. Can you guess why?   but armed resistance by western tribes did manage to get them the FEW concessions they did get. They forced them out of the more powerful US government by their resistance. Unfortunantly , after they were put on reservations they were
> basicaly lied to and screwed over.   The wounded knee massacre happened during one of those dissarmament forays.  Also, a very high percentage died from disease.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course, they were basically at war, surely the US tried to disarm anyone they were at war with.
> 
> Armed resistance got them what? A few concessions, that's saying that no one gets concessions unless they have guns? Rubbish.
> 
> Your argument is still as weak as water.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean YOU believe the founding fathers argument is weaker than water.  I disagree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I don't mean that at all.
Click to expand...

Well... It's not my argument I am making.  It is the Founding Father's argument I am re-stating.

The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"I_f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." 

- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"

Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it._


----------



## ding

frigidweirdo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Blacks committed 4 times the per capita murders with guns than the national average.  If blacks had just committed murders at the rate of the national average, our gun death rate would have dropped from 2.67 murders per 100,000 persons to 1.76 murders per 100,000 persons.
> 
> So when liberals talk about taking guns away, that is code for taking guns away from blacks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then again blacks are far more likely to be in poverty too. White people in poverty are more likely to use guns in crime, as are black people. But then it's easy to just take one statistic and float it around without looking at the whole situation, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My goodness.  One statistic.   You need to go back and review the FBI's data, bro.  It's that way across all of the violent crime types and has been that way ever since the FBI started compiling the data.  The bottom line is that American's are not violent.  Certain segments of America is, and since you are using our total statistics to inform your opinion, your opinion is being skewed by the segment which is skewing the data.  Like I said, rather than worrying about guns, you just might to want to deal with the real root cause of the problem.
> 
> Blaming poverty is an excuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, blaming poverty isn't an excuse. I've actually gone and broken down violent crime statistics by areas of a city based on poverty levels and found that actually poverty levels and crime often go hand in hand.
> 
> The problem is getting those detailed statistics. The stats I used were from London because I could get all of these statistics, for poverty levels, for income levels, for numbers of black people, Asian people, white people etc, and I could get crime statistics for each of this, at the local level, not at city level.
> 
> You have not used any evidence at all. You're just throwing things at me and hoping they stick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It sure sounds like an excuse, amigo.  You are literally saying that because someone is poor they have a propensity to rape, assault or murder people?  Get real.  There are tons of crime statistic from the FBI and they all show the same thing.  For every type of violent crime, blacks are skewing the numbers.  If we remove that segment, then the per capita numbers drop significantly.  I have a correlation for you... voting for Democrats leads to higher crime rates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like an excuse because you haven't taken the time to figure things out.
> 
> You said because they're poor, they're more likely to rape and commit crime. I see it the other way.
> 
> I see certain types of personality, people with lower IQs, etc are more likely to be in poverty. People with mental problems are more likely to be in poverty. I've seen this at first hand and seen how mental problems prevent people being able to do well in their job simply because they'll rub the boss the wrong way all the time.
> 
> Also, I can point to areas of poverty having higher levels of crime etc.
> 
> You say blacks are skewing the numbers because you've taken a very small view of what there is. You've not presented a single statistic, let alone a comprehensive study of crime statistics, to tell me this. When I get time, possibly tomorrow, I'll try and show you what I found out about London.
> 
> Yeah, you have lots of correlations, they often mean nothing much. Hey, if only men voted, Trump would walk this election. If only women voted, Hillary would walk this election. Says what? Nothing much. You throw stats at something without understand the issues and you get nothing.
Click to expand...

There are poor in all ethnicity, amigo,


----------



## ding

Vandalshandle said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> RW,
> Give up. Ding saw a Clint Eastwood movie when he was growing up, and it changed his life forever. He has been talking to empty chairs, and trying to outdraw himself in the mirror, ever since.
> 
> 
> 
> Why should I give up?  That makes no sense at all.   I'm winning.  Oh... you are telling your modern liberal amigo to give up.  Sure, that makes total sense.  Not only am I making him look foolish, he is giving me a platform to state the self evident truth that the 2nd Amendment was written as a last check against tyranny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is already too late, in Texas. The military took control of all the state from El Paso to Lubbock, and confiscated all their weapons during Jade Helm. You never heard about it, because there is very little internet connection out there.
> 
> Be prepared. When Hillary is elected, your town may be next.....
Click to expand...

You crack me up.  It takes a special kind of troll to get under my skin.  You ain't it.  How does it feel when the tables get turned?  Man, I need a smoke.


----------



## frigidweirdo

ding said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And having conveniently ignored other genocides, like, oh, the US genocide against the native peoples, where the Native peoples had guns and the US had even more guns.
> 
> There have been plenty of genocides out there, picking and choosing what you want and then presenting it is poor logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the US government had a big campaign to disarm native Americans. Can you guess why?   but armed resistance by western tribes did manage to get them the FEW concessions they did get. They forced them out of the more powerful US government by their resistance. Unfortunantly , after they were put on reservations they were
> basicaly lied to and screwed over.   The wounded knee massacre happened during one of those dissarmament forays.  Also, a very high percentage died from disease.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course, they were basically at war, surely the US tried to disarm anyone they were at war with.
> 
> Armed resistance got them what? A few concessions, that's saying that no one gets concessions unless they have guns? Rubbish.
> 
> Your argument is still as weak as water.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean YOU believe the founding fathers argument is weaker than water.  I disagree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I don't mean that at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well... It's not my argument I am making.  It is the Founding Father's argument I am re-stating.
> 
> The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.
> 
> "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> "I_f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
> 
> - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.
> 
> "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"
> 
> Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"
> 
> The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.
> 
> "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
> 
> "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
> 
> "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it._
Click to expand...


No, you're not repeating the Founders' arguments. The founders weren't a solid group who all thought the same, so that's impossible. 

Firstly, I didn't say the 2A wasn't the last check on govt tyranny. So quoting all this stuff to show this doesn't do anything. You're not arguing against me. I don't know who you're arguing against, but it seems kind of pointless to tell me this.


----------



## Vandalshandle

frigidweirdo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the US government had a big campaign to disarm native Americans. Can you guess why?   but armed resistance by western tribes did manage to get them the FEW concessions they did get. They forced them out of the more powerful US government by their resistance. Unfortunantly , after they were put on reservations they were
> basicaly lied to and screwed over.   The wounded knee massacre happened during one of those dissarmament forays.  Also, a very high percentage died from disease.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, they were basically at war, surely the US tried to disarm anyone they were at war with.
> 
> Armed resistance got them what? A few concessions, that's saying that no one gets concessions unless they have guns? Rubbish.
> 
> Your argument is still as weak as water.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean YOU believe the founding fathers argument is weaker than water.  I disagree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I don't mean that at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well... It's not my argument I am making.  It is the Founding Father's argument I am re-stating.
> 
> The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.
> 
> "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> "I_f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
> 
> - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.
> 
> "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"
> 
> Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"
> 
> The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.
> 
> "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
> 
> "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
> 
> "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you're not repeating the Founders' arguments. The founders weren't a solid group who all thought the same, so that's impossible.
> 
> Firstly, I didn't say the 2A wasn't the last check on govt tyranny. So quoting all this stuff to show this doesn't do anything. You're not arguing against me. I don't know who you're arguing against, but it seems kind of pointless to tell me this.
Click to expand...


I think that he has decided that I am going to take his gun away and impose communist genocide on the USA population because I would like the country to have universal background checks for all gun purchases.


----------



## frigidweirdo

ding said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then again blacks are far more likely to be in poverty too. White people in poverty are more likely to use guns in crime, as are black people. But then it's easy to just take one statistic and float it around without looking at the whole situation, isn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> My goodness.  One statistic.   You need to go back and review the FBI's data, bro.  It's that way across all of the violent crime types and has been that way ever since the FBI started compiling the data.  The bottom line is that American's are not violent.  Certain segments of America is, and since you are using our total statistics to inform your opinion, your opinion is being skewed by the segment which is skewing the data.  Like I said, rather than worrying about guns, you just might to want to deal with the real root cause of the problem.
> 
> Blaming poverty is an excuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, blaming poverty isn't an excuse. I've actually gone and broken down violent crime statistics by areas of a city based on poverty levels and found that actually poverty levels and crime often go hand in hand.
> 
> The problem is getting those detailed statistics. The stats I used were from London because I could get all of these statistics, for poverty levels, for income levels, for numbers of black people, Asian people, white people etc, and I could get crime statistics for each of this, at the local level, not at city level.
> 
> You have not used any evidence at all. You're just throwing things at me and hoping they stick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It sure sounds like an excuse, amigo.  You are literally saying that because someone is poor they have a propensity to rape, assault or murder people?  Get real.  There are tons of crime statistic from the FBI and they all show the same thing.  For every type of violent crime, blacks are skewing the numbers.  If we remove that segment, then the per capita numbers drop significantly.  I have a correlation for you... voting for Democrats leads to higher crime rates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like an excuse because you haven't taken the time to figure things out.
> 
> You said because they're poor, they're more likely to rape and commit crime. I see it the other way.
> 
> I see certain types of personality, people with lower IQs, etc are more likely to be in poverty. People with mental problems are more likely to be in poverty. I've seen this at first hand and seen how mental problems prevent people being able to do well in their job simply because they'll rub the boss the wrong way all the time.
> 
> Also, I can point to areas of poverty having higher levels of crime etc.
> 
> You say blacks are skewing the numbers because you've taken a very small view of what there is. You've not presented a single statistic, let alone a comprehensive study of crime statistics, to tell me this. When I get time, possibly tomorrow, I'll try and show you what I found out about London.
> 
> Yeah, you have lots of correlations, they often mean nothing much. Hey, if only men voted, Trump would walk this election. If only women voted, Hillary would walk this election. Says what? Nothing much. You throw stats at something without understand the issues and you get nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are poor in all ethnicity, amigo,
Click to expand...


Okay, here's where I ask you to write in proper English, you could even try in Spanish, but what you just said makes no sense to me. 

Do you mean "ethnicities"? 

And then once you've got past the language barrier, what is the point of what you're saying? If you don't explain yourself, then this is pointless.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Vandalshandle said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, they were basically at war, surely the US tried to disarm anyone they were at war with.
> 
> Armed resistance got them what? A few concessions, that's saying that no one gets concessions unless they have guns? Rubbish.
> 
> Your argument is still as weak as water.
> 
> 
> 
> You mean YOU believe the founding fathers argument is weaker than water.  I disagree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I don't mean that at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well... It's not my argument I am making.  It is the Founding Father's argument I am re-stating.
> 
> The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.
> 
> "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> "I_f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
> 
> - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.
> 
> "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"
> 
> Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"
> 
> The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.
> 
> "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
> 
> "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
> 
> "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you're not repeating the Founders' arguments. The founders weren't a solid group who all thought the same, so that's impossible.
> 
> Firstly, I didn't say the 2A wasn't the last check on govt tyranny. So quoting all this stuff to show this doesn't do anything. You're not arguing against me. I don't know who you're arguing against, but it seems kind of pointless to tell me this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think that he has decided that I am going to take his gun away and impose communist genocide on the USA population because I would like the country to have universal background checks for all gun purchases.
Click to expand...


I can see the logic there..... if I close my eyes hard enough and have a freaky dream.


----------



## Spare_change

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Nowhere in the history, text, or case law of the Second Amendment will one find any reference to the Second Amendment 'trumping' the First Amendment, or authorizing the Second Amendment to abridge the First Amendment right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances through either the political process or the judicial process.
> 
> That a minority of citizens might subjectively and in error perceive government to have become 'tyrannical' in no manner 'justifies' that minority to 'take up arms' against a government lawfully sanctioned by a majority of the people, where government is indeed functioning in accordance with the Constitution and its case law.
> 
> There must first be consensus and agreement among the people through the political and democratic process as to what constitutes actual 'tyranny,' and that, consistent with that consensus, the government is in fact 'tyrannical' - then and only then might 'taking up arms' be warranted and lawful.



British, perhaps??

Because that is EXACTLY what happened 250 years ago --- _*"minority of citizens might subjectively and in error perceive government to have become 'tyrannical' in no manner 'justifies' that minority to 'take up arms' against a government lawfully sanctioned by a majority of the people"
*_
There does NOT have to be "consensus" ... you only have to choose a side.


----------



## Spare_change

frigidweirdo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.
> 
> "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> "_f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
> 
> - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.
> 
> "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"
> 
> Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"
> 
> The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.
> 
> "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
> 
> "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
> 
> "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly the right to bear arms doesn't give you an armed populace. That's the right to keep arms. The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia.
> 
> i.e., the militia with citizen soldiers, that means you need people with the guns for the militia, and you need people to use the guns in the militia.
Click to expand...


Seriously?

Let me guess ... you skipped your Government classes in Junior High, right?

You couldn't be more wrong .... well, you could, but you would have to write it in Russian.


----------



## Spare_change

ding said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nowhere in the history, text, or case law of the Second Amendment will one find any reference to the Second Amendment 'trumping' the First Amendment, or authorizing the Second Amendment to abridge the First Amendment right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances through either the political process or the judicial process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one said it did, but that also works the other way too.  Nowhere in the history, text, or case law of the First Amendment will one find any reference to the First Amendment 'trumping' the Second Amendment, or authorizing the First Amendment to abridge the Second Amendment right of the people to bear arms.  One right does not trump another.  Rights, are not given or granted they exist by simply being, and they impose nothing upon another. When the exercise of a right imposes upon another, one has exceeded the natural limitations of that right.
Click to expand...


One amendment does not "trump" another amendment.

But, it is a safe observation that it is the Second Amendment that protects all the others.


----------



## Spare_change

Vandalshandle said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, they were basically at war, surely the US tried to disarm anyone they were at war with.
> 
> Armed resistance got them what? A few concessions, that's saying that no one gets concessions unless they have guns? Rubbish.
> 
> Your argument is still as weak as water.
> 
> 
> 
> You mean YOU believe the founding fathers argument is weaker than water.  I disagree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I don't mean that at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well... It's not my argument I am making.  It is the Founding Father's argument I am re-stating.
> 
> The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.
> 
> "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> "I_f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
> 
> - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.
> 
> "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"
> 
> Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"
> 
> The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.
> 
> "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
> 
> "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
> 
> "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you're not repeating the Founders' arguments. The founders weren't a solid group who all thought the same, so that's impossible.
> 
> Firstly, I didn't say the 2A wasn't the last check on govt tyranny. So quoting all this stuff to show this doesn't do anything. You're not arguing against me. I don't know who you're arguing against, but it seems kind of pointless to tell me this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think that he has decided that I am going to take his gun away and impose communist genocide on the USA population because I would like the country to have universal background checks for all gun purchases.
Click to expand...



Step 1 ....


----------



## Skull Pilot

rightwinger said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The second amendment was a quaint idea at the time, but is no longer needed for national defense
> 
> Let the states handle gun rights
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  The right to defend one's self family and property should not be left to the whim of the States. That is a right on par with every other right enumerated in the Constitution.
> 
> The government cannot and has no legal obligation to protect you, your family or your property
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God bless America!
> 
> A country built on the rights of states to set there own rules. There is no need for Federal gun laws......Militias are obsolete
> 
> Let the states decide how much control they need over guns
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great so let's repeal the entire bill of rights and let the states handle all of it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's just drop the second and third amendments. They are not needed
> 
> States can more than handle it
Click to expand...

States can handle all of them

SO why have the Bill of Rights at all?

The right to defend one's self, family and property is as fundamental as the right to free speech


----------



## Skull Pilot

Vandalshandle said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The public cannot get "assault" weapons
> 
> The only thing civilians can buy are semiautomatic weapons which have been around since the mid 1800's.
> 
> Magazine size is a red herring
> 
> Just because my 9mm can hold a 17 round magazine doesn't mean I am going to shoot 17 people
> Just because a person had a 30 round magazine for a semiauto rifle doesn't mean he is going to shoot up a school
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and just because North Korea has a nuclear bomb doesn't mean that they are going to use it, so we'll just let that pass without concern.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes because we all know a semi auto and a nuclear bomb are exactly alike
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will admit that you are right. if I see you walk into a movie theater with a semi-automatic weapon and a 50 round drum, I am just paranoid enough to suspect that you might be up to no good.
> 
> Silly me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And seriously what are the odds of that happening?
> 
> 3 or 4 out of 350 million
> 
> That is not a compelling enough reason to deny law abiding people any size magazine for their weapons they want
> 
> People who own guns, follow every law and are responsible in their ownership are not responsible for the crimes of another
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God forbid that I take away some yahoo's right to completely wipe out a Deer Crossing sign without his having to reload.
Click to expand...


Yeah because ALL people who own guns do that

I don't know why it's so hard for you to understand that simply because a person owns a gun he is not responsible for all crimes other people commit with a gun

I suppose you think because all men have penises that all men are responsible for every rape too


----------



## Skull Pilot

rightwinger said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now about you wanting to ban high capacity magazines, do I understand you correctly that you want the army and police to have high capacity magazines but the people who the 2nd Amendment was meant to protect shouldn't?  In what bizzaro world does that make any sense at all?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes....because I trust the army and police more than some survivalist nutcase
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess you haven't been watching the news much lately, lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes......I see 32,000 gun deaths a year thanks to our second amendment keeping us safe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's only because you believe suicides are gun deaths instead of suicides.  A sure sign of too much estrogen.  You may want to cut back on soy products in your diet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dead is dead.....Boom
> Brains all over the place
> 
> Thank God for the second amendment
Click to expand...


The second amendment has nothing to do with suicides in fact more than half of all suicides are committed with means other than guns

Suicide is a choice not a crime


----------



## Skull Pilot

rightwinger said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to the FBI's statistics on Crime, in 2014 murders by rifles was 0.12 persons per 100,000 people.
> 
> 
> 
> OK. Let's just ban handguns
Click to expand...

Let's just put violent criminals away for a long time and leave law abiding people alone


----------



## rightwinger

ding said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to the FBI's statistics on Crime, in 2014 murders by rifles was 0.12 persons per 100,000 people.
> 
> 
> 
> OK. Let's just ban handguns
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I thought you said you didn't want to ban guns at all?
Click to expand...

You convinced me otherwise


----------



## rightwinger

ding said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> RW,
> Give up. Ding saw a Clint Eastwood movie when he was growing up, and it changed his life forever. He has been talking to empty chairs, and trying to outdraw himself in the mirror, ever since.
> 
> 
> 
> Why should I give up?  That makes no sense at all.   I'm winning.  Oh... you are telling your modern liberal amigo to give up.  Sure, that makes total sense.  Not only am I making him look foolish, he is giving me a platform to state the self evident truth that the 2nd Amendment was written as a last check against tyranny.  That the people are the militia.  That the people have the right to own and possess guns.  That well regulated does not mean regulations.  That well regulated means to be in proper working order.  And that we won't need to rebel against our government because the mere act of an armed populace acts as a deterrent against a tyrannical government.
Click to expand...

Again with the self proclaimed victories.....I'm winning
You sound like Charlie Sheen

You parrot the same tired NRA propaganda while you stockpile ammunition and dream of the day you can fight the evil Gubmint


----------



## rightwinger

Skull Pilot said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes....because I trust the army and police more than some survivalist nutcase
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you haven't been watching the news much lately, lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes......I see 32,000 gun deaths a year thanks to our second amendment keeping us safe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's only because you believe suicides are gun deaths instead of suicides.  A sure sign of too much estrogen.  You may want to cut back on soy products in your diet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dead is dead.....Boom
> Brains all over the place
> 
> Thank God for the second amendment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The second amendment has nothing to do with suicides in fact more than half of all suicides are committed with means other than guns
> 
> Suicide is a choice not a crime
Click to expand...

Yet guns are such an effective tool. Less than one percent of attempts are non fatal. Take an overdose of pills and you have an hour to change your mind. Pull a trigger and you have a split second


----------



## Skull Pilot

rightwinger said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you haven't been watching the news much lately, lol.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes......I see 32,000 gun deaths a year thanks to our second amendment keeping us safe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's only because you believe suicides are gun deaths instead of suicides.  A sure sign of too much estrogen.  You may want to cut back on soy products in your diet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dead is dead.....Boom
> Brains all over the place
> 
> Thank God for the second amendment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The second amendment has nothing to do with suicides in fact more than half of all suicides are committed with means other than guns
> 
> Suicide is a choice not a crime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet guns are such an effective tool. Less than one percent of attempts are non fatal. Take an overdose of pills and you have an hour to change your mind. Pull a trigger and you have a split second
Click to expand...

So what?

Suicide is a choice not a crime


----------



## Vandalshandle

Skull Pilot said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...and just because North Korea has a nuclear bomb doesn't mean that they are going to use it, so we'll just let that pass without concern.
> 
> 
> 
> yes because we all know a semi auto and a nuclear bomb are exactly alike
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will admit that you are right. if I see you walk into a movie theater with a semi-automatic weapon and a 50 round drum, I am just paranoid enough to suspect that you might be up to no good.
> 
> Silly me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And seriously what are the odds of that happening?
> 
> 3 or 4 out of 350 million
> 
> That is not a compelling enough reason to deny law abiding people any size magazine for their weapons they want
> 
> People who own guns, follow every law and are responsible in their ownership are not responsible for the crimes of another
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God forbid that I take away some yahoo's right to completely wipe out a Deer Crossing sign without his having to reload.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah because ALL people who own guns do that
> 
> I don't know why it's so hard for you to understand that simply because a person owns a gun he is not responsible for all crimes other people commit with a gun
> 
> I suppose you think because all men have penises that all men are responsible for every rape too
Click to expand...


And you fail to understand that every person who ever killed someone with a gun was once an innocent man.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Vandalshandle said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes because we all know a semi auto and a nuclear bomb are exactly alike
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will admit that you are right. if I see you walk into a movie theater with a semi-automatic weapon and a 50 round drum, I am just paranoid enough to suspect that you might be up to no good.
> 
> Silly me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And seriously what are the odds of that happening?
> 
> 3 or 4 out of 350 million
> 
> That is not a compelling enough reason to deny law abiding people any size magazine for their weapons they want
> 
> People who own guns, follow every law and are responsible in their ownership are not responsible for the crimes of another
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God forbid that I take away some yahoo's right to completely wipe out a Deer Crossing sign without his having to reload.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah because ALL people who own guns do that
> 
> I don't know why it's so hard for you to understand that simply because a person owns a gun he is not responsible for all crimes other people commit with a gun
> 
> I suppose you think because all men have penises that all men are responsible for every rape too
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you fail to understand that every person who ever killed someone with a gun was once an innocent man.
Click to expand...


SO what?

You can't punish people for crimes they have not yet committed.  And you can't punish an innocent person for the crimes of another

But tell you what you volunteer to be castrated because all rapists were once innocent men, give up your driver's license because all drunk drivers were once sober drivers, spend the rest of your life in prison because all criminals were once not criminals at least that way you'l be consistent with your beliefs that all people need to be treated like criminals for future crimes they may or may not commit


----------



## Vandalshandle

Skull Pilot said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will admit that you are right. if I see you walk into a movie theater with a semi-automatic weapon and a 50 round drum, I am just paranoid enough to suspect that you might be up to no good.
> 
> Silly me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And seriously what are the odds of that happening?
> 
> 3 or 4 out of 350 million
> 
> That is not a compelling enough reason to deny law abiding people any size magazine for their weapons they want
> 
> People who own guns, follow every law and are responsible in their ownership are not responsible for the crimes of another
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God forbid that I take away some yahoo's right to completely wipe out a Deer Crossing sign without his having to reload.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah because ALL people who own guns do that
> 
> I don't know why it's so hard for you to understand that simply because a person owns a gun he is not responsible for all crimes other people commit with a gun
> 
> I suppose you think because all men have penises that all men are responsible for every rape too
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you fail to understand that every person who ever killed someone with a gun was once an innocent man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SO what?
> 
> You can't punish people for crimes they have not yet committed.  And you can't punish an innocent person for the crimes of another
> 
> But tell you what you volunteer to be castrated because all rapists were once innocent men, give up your driver's license because all drunk drivers were once sober drivers, spend the rest of your life in prison because all criminals were once not criminals at least that way you'l be consistent with your beliefs that all people need to be treated like criminals for future crimes they may or may not commit
Click to expand...


It is not unreasonable to make it illegal for someone to sell a gun without a background check, and it is not unreasonable for a person who knowingly sells a gun to a person who would not pass a background check, to be charged with accessory, if the person that he sold it to commits homicide with it.


----------



## rightwinger

Skull Pilot said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes......I see 32,000 gun deaths a year thanks to our second amendment keeping us safe
> 
> 
> 
> That's only because you believe suicides are gun deaths instead of suicides.  A sure sign of too much estrogen.  You may want to cut back on soy products in your diet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dead is dead.....Boom
> Brains all over the place
> 
> Thank God for the second amendment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The second amendment has nothing to do with suicides in fact more than half of all suicides are committed with means other than guns
> 
> Suicide is a choice not a crime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet guns are such an effective tool. Less than one percent of attempts are non fatal. Take an overdose of pills and you have an hour to change your mind. Pull a trigger and you have a split second
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what?
> 
> Suicide is a choice not a crime
Click to expand...


So there is no reason to encourage it


----------



## rightwinger

Skull Pilot said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will admit that you are right. if I see you walk into a movie theater with a semi-automatic weapon and a 50 round drum, I am just paranoid enough to suspect that you might be up to no good.
> 
> Silly me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And seriously what are the odds of that happening?
> 
> 3 or 4 out of 350 million
> 
> That is not a compelling enough reason to deny law abiding people any size magazine for their weapons they want
> 
> People who own guns, follow every law and are responsible in their ownership are not responsible for the crimes of another
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God forbid that I take away some yahoo's right to completely wipe out a Deer Crossing sign without his having to reload.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah because ALL people who own guns do that
> 
> I don't know why it's so hard for you to understand that simply because a person owns a gun he is not responsible for all crimes other people commit with a gun
> 
> I suppose you think because all men have penises that all men are responsible for every rape too
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you fail to understand that every person who ever killed someone with a gun was once an innocent man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SO what?
> 
> You can't punish people for crimes they have not yet committed.  And you can't punish an innocent person for the crimes of another
> 
> But tell you what you volunteer to be castrated because all rapists were once innocent men, give up your driver's license because all drunk drivers were once sober drivers, spend the rest of your life in prison because all criminals were once not criminals at least that way you'l be consistent with your beliefs that all people need to be treated like criminals for future crimes they may or may not commit
Click to expand...

Sure you can....even if you think preventing access to weapons is "punishment"

Should someone convicted of beating his wife be allowed to trot down to the local gun shop after having a fight?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Spare_change said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nowhere in the history, text, or case law of the Second Amendment will one find any reference to the Second Amendment 'trumping' the First Amendment, or authorizing the Second Amendment to abridge the First Amendment right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances through either the political process or the judicial process.
> 
> That a minority of citizens might subjectively and in error perceive government to have become 'tyrannical' in no manner 'justifies' that minority to 'take up arms' against a government lawfully sanctioned by a majority of the people, where government is indeed functioning in accordance with the Constitution and its case law.
> 
> There must first be consensus and agreement among the people through the political and democratic process as to what constitutes actual 'tyranny,' and that, consistent with that consensus, the government is in fact 'tyrannical' - then and only then might 'taking up arms' be warranted and lawful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> British, perhaps??
> 
> Because that is EXACTLY what happened 250 years ago --- _*"minority of citizens might subjectively and in error perceive government to have become 'tyrannical' in no manner 'justifies' that minority to 'take up arms' against a government lawfully sanctioned by a majority of the people"
> *_
> There does NOT have to be "consensus" ... you only have to choose a side.
Click to expand...

This fails as a false comparison fallacy.

The Revolutionary War concerned a foreign government acting outside of the rule of law without the consent of the people, as opposed to today where the Federal government is acting with the consent of the people, consistent with the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law.

And consensus is in fact needed.

There must be agreement as to the criteria and conditions that render a government ‘tyrannical,’ not the subjective beliefs and perceptions of a frightened, reactionary minority.

The people have the First Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances through the political process and then the judicial process; that right cannot be abridged or superseded by the Second Amendment.   

Last, the issue has nothing to do with ‘taking sides,’ whatever that’s supposed to mean.

The mistake you make is to incorrectly perceive ‘the government’ as some sort of entity separate and apart from the people, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

In fact, the government and the people are one in the same: the government is the creation of the people, the government is acting at the behest of the people, reflecting the will of the people, consistent with our Republican form of government and the rule of law.

To seek to oppose the government of the people, created by the people, absent a just and legitimate cause, predicated solely on partisan, ideological opposition to the government, is to oppose the people, the Constitution, and the rule of law.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Spare_change said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nowhere in the history, text, or case law of the Second Amendment will one find any reference to the Second Amendment 'trumping' the First Amendment, or authorizing the Second Amendment to abridge the First Amendment right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances through either the political process or the judicial process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one said it did, but that also works the other way too.  Nowhere in the history, text, or case law of the First Amendment will one find any reference to the First Amendment 'trumping' the Second Amendment, or authorizing the First Amendment to abridge the Second Amendment right of the people to bear arms.  One right does not trump another.  Rights, are not given or granted they exist by simply being, and they impose nothing upon another. When the exercise of a right imposes upon another, one has exceeded the natural limitations of that right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One amendment does not "trump" another amendment.
> 
> But, it is a safe observation that it is the Second Amendment that protects all the others.
Click to expand...

It's an incorrect observation. 

The wrongheaded notion that the people have the right to 'take up arms' against a legitimate, lawfully installed government functioning consistent with the Constitution and its case law seeks only to destroy the First Amendment, along with the other rights and protected liberties of the people.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Skull Pilot said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The second amendment was a quaint idea at the time, but is no longer needed for national defense
> 
> Let the states handle gun rights
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  The right to defend one's self family and property should not be left to the whim of the States. That is a right on par with every other right enumerated in the Constitution.
> 
> The government cannot and has no legal obligation to protect you, your family or your property
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God bless America!
> 
> A country built on the rights of states to set there own rules. There is no need for Federal gun laws......Militias are obsolete
> 
> Let the states decide how much control they need over guns
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great so let's repeal the entire bill of rights and let the states handle all of it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's just drop the second and third amendments. They are not needed
> 
> States can more than handle it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> States can handle all of them
> 
> SO why have the Bill of Rights at all?
> 
> The right to defend one's self, family and property is as fundamental as the right to free speech
Click to expand...

The Bill of Rights exists to safeguard the protected liberties of all the people, of the citizens who reside in the many states, from their fellow citizens who might seek to disadvantage other citizens for unwarranted, capricious reasons.

Indeed, the majority may not use the Federal government, nor any state government, to violate the rights and protected liberties of a given class of persons for no other reason than who they are.

In fact, state governments have exhibited a disturbing propensity to violate the rights of American citizens who reside in the states.

The rights enshrined in the Second Amendment safeguard the individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with militia service, pursuant to the right of lawful self-defense.

As is the case with other rights, the Second Amendment right is not absolute. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose[]” (_DC v. Heller_), such as the purpose of ‘overthrowing’ through ‘force of arms’ a lawfully installed government functioning with the consent of the people, reflecting the will of the people, because a minority of citizens incorrectly perceive ‘the government’ to have become ‘tyrannical.’


----------



## Spare_change

Vandalshandle said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And seriously what are the odds of that happening?
> 
> 3 or 4 out of 350 million
> 
> That is not a compelling enough reason to deny law abiding people any size magazine for their weapons they want
> 
> People who own guns, follow every law and are responsible in their ownership are not responsible for the crimes of another
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God forbid that I take away some yahoo's right to completely wipe out a Deer Crossing sign without his having to reload.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah because ALL people who own guns do that
> 
> I don't know why it's so hard for you to understand that simply because a person owns a gun he is not responsible for all crimes other people commit with a gun
> 
> I suppose you think because all men have penises that all men are responsible for every rape too
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you fail to understand that every person who ever killed someone with a gun was once an innocent man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SO what?
> 
> You can't punish people for crimes they have not yet committed.  And you can't punish an innocent person for the crimes of another
> 
> But tell you what you volunteer to be castrated because all rapists were once innocent men, give up your driver's license because all drunk drivers were once sober drivers, spend the rest of your life in prison because all criminals were once not criminals at least that way you'l be consistent with your beliefs that all people need to be treated like criminals for future crimes they may or may not commit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not unreasonable to make it illegal for someone to sell a gun without a background check, and it is not unreasonable for a person who knowingly sells a gun to a person who would not pass a background check, to be charged with accessory, if the person that he sold it to commits homicide with it.
Click to expand...


It is, in fact, unreasonable ... just because you say it doesn't make it so.

In fact, if you say it, we can pretty much expect it to be unreasonable.


----------



## Spare_change

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nowhere in the history, text, or case law of the Second Amendment will one find any reference to the Second Amendment 'trumping' the First Amendment, or authorizing the Second Amendment to abridge the First Amendment right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances through either the political process or the judicial process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one said it did, but that also works the other way too.  Nowhere in the history, text, or case law of the First Amendment will one find any reference to the First Amendment 'trumping' the Second Amendment, or authorizing the First Amendment to abridge the Second Amendment right of the people to bear arms.  One right does not trump another.  Rights, are not given or granted they exist by simply being, and they impose nothing upon another. When the exercise of a right imposes upon another, one has exceeded the natural limitations of that right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One amendment does not "trump" another amendment.
> 
> But, it is a safe observation that it is the Second Amendment that protects all the others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's an incorrect observation.
> 
> The wrongheaded notion that the people have the right to 'take up arms' against a legitimate, lawfully installed government functioning consistent with the Constitution and its case law seeks only to destroy the First Amendment, along with the other rights and protected liberties of the people.
Click to expand...


The last time I checked .... revolution is not conducted within the framework of unjust laws. It is a reaction TO unjust laws. It is nonsensical to think that those who revolt against the current bastardization of the Constitution are somehow restricted by that bastardization.

Your logic defies ... uhhh .... well ... logic.


----------



## Tennyson

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nowhere in the history, text, or case law of the Second Amendment will one find any reference to the Second Amendment 'trumping' the First Amendment, or authorizing the Second Amendment to abridge the First Amendment right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances through either the political process or the judicial process.
> 
> That a minority of citizens might subjectively and in error perceive government to have become 'tyrannical' in no manner 'justifies' that minority to 'take up arms' against a government lawfully sanctioned by a majority of the people, where government is indeed functioning in accordance with the Constitution and its case law.
> 
> There must first be consensus and agreement among the people through the political and democratic process as to what constitutes actual 'tyranny,' and that, consistent with that consensus, the government is in fact 'tyrannical' - then and only then might 'taking up arms' be warranted and lawful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> British, perhaps??
> 
> Because that is EXACTLY what happened 250 years ago --- _*"minority of citizens might subjectively and in error perceive government to have become 'tyrannical' in no manner 'justifies' that minority to 'take up arms' against a government lawfully sanctioned by a majority of the people"
> *_
> There does NOT have to be "consensus" ... you only have to choose a side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This fails as a false comparison fallacy.
> 
> The Revolutionary War concerned a foreign government acting outside of the rule of law without the consent of the people, as opposed to today where the Federal government is acting with the consent of the people, consistent with the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law.
> 
> And consensus is in fact needed.
> 
> There must be agreement as to the criteria and conditions that render a government ‘tyrannical,’ not the subjective beliefs and perceptions of a frightened, reactionary minority.
> 
> The people have the First Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances through the political process and then the judicial process; that right cannot be abridged or superseded by the Second Amendment.
> 
> Last, the issue has nothing to do with ‘taking sides,’ whatever that’s supposed to mean.
> 
> The mistake you make is to incorrectly perceive ‘the government’ as some sort of entity separate and apart from the people, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.
> 
> In fact, the government and the people are one in the same: the government is the creation of the people, the government is acting at the behest of the people, reflecting the will of the people, consistent with our Republican form of government and the rule of law.
> 
> To seek to oppose the government of the people, created by the people, absent a just and legitimate cause, predicated solely on partisan, ideological opposition to the government, is to oppose the people, the Constitution, and the rule of law.
Click to expand...


The Revolutionary War did not concern “a foreign government acting outside of the rule of law without the consent of the people.” Britain was not a foreign government. The British government and the American colonies were one and the same. The colonies had British government on site governing the colonies. The consent of the people did not exist to be violated. The situation that caused the Revolutionary War was the same situation that had caused empires and nations to collapse throughout recorded history and is the same situation between the states and the federal government today. The federal government is not operating under the consent of the people, or our country would not be so bitterly divided today. If the government was operating under the consent of the people, then the Supreme Court would be nationally elected due to their self-imposed power over the states and the people.

The government is operating as a separate entity. That is why this country is divided beyond repair today.

The government is not the people, and that is the problem. The people did not create a Supreme Court with power over the states or people, and the people did not create the executive branch’s cabinet of entities that make and create laws that affect the people in the stead or the House. The rule of law precludes executive orders that create law, cabinet entities that create and enforce laws, Supreme Court jurisdiction over states or people, etc. That is not the rule of law; that is the rule of man.


----------



## Tennyson

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  The right to defend one's self family and property should not be left to the whim of the States. That is a right on par with every other right enumerated in the Constitution.
> 
> The government cannot and has no legal obligation to protect you, your family or your property
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God bless America!
> 
> A country built on the rights of states to set there own rules. There is no need for Federal gun laws......Militias are obsolete
> 
> Let the states decide how much control they need over guns
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great so let's repeal the entire bill of rights and let the states handle all of it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's just drop the second and third amendments. They are not needed
> 
> States can more than handle it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> States can handle all of them
> 
> SO why have the Bill of Rights at all?
> 
> The right to defend one's self, family and property is as fundamental as the right to free speech
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Bill of Rights exists to safeguard the protected liberties of all the people, of the citizens who reside in the many states, from their fellow citizens who might seek to disadvantage other citizens for unwarranted, capricious reasons.
> 
> Indeed, the majority may not use the Federal government, nor any state government, to violate the rights and protected liberties of a given class of persons for no other reason than who they are.
> 
> In fact, state governments have exhibited a disturbing propensity to violate the rights of American citizens who reside in the states.
> 
> The rights enshrined in the Second Amendment safeguard the individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with militia service, pursuant to the right of lawful self-defense.
> 
> As is the case with other rights, the Second Amendment right is not absolute. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose[]” (_DC v. Heller_), such as the purpose of ‘overthrowing’ through ‘force of arms’ a lawfully installed government functioning with the consent of the people, reflecting the will of the people, because a minority of citizens incorrectly perceive ‘the government’ to have become ‘tyrannical.’
Click to expand...


The Bill of Rights exists to prevent the federal government from infringing individual rights and state’s rights.

The Second Amendment is an absolute right regarding the federal government. The state governments have not shown a “disturbing propensity to violate the rights of American citizens who reside in the states.”


----------



## rightwinger

Tennyson said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> God bless America!
> 
> A country built on the rights of states to set there own rules. There is no need for Federal gun laws......Militias are obsolete
> 
> Let the states decide how much control they need over guns
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great so let's repeal the entire bill of rights and let the states handle all of it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's just drop the second and third amendments. They are not needed
> 
> States can more than handle it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> States can handle all of them
> 
> SO why have the Bill of Rights at all?
> 
> The right to defend one's self, family and property is as fundamental as the right to free speech
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Bill of Rights exists to safeguard the protected liberties of all the people, of the citizens who reside in the many states, from their fellow citizens who might seek to disadvantage other citizens for unwarranted, capricious reasons.
> 
> Indeed, the majority may not use the Federal government, nor any state government, to violate the rights and protected liberties of a given class of persons for no other reason than who they are.
> 
> In fact, state governments have exhibited a disturbing propensity to violate the rights of American citizens who reside in the states.
> 
> The rights enshrined in the Second Amendment safeguard the individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with militia service, pursuant to the right of lawful self-defense.
> 
> As is the case with other rights, the Second Amendment right is not absolute. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose[]” (_DC v. Heller_), such as the purpose of ‘overthrowing’ through ‘force of arms’ a lawfully installed government functioning with the consent of the people, reflecting the will of the people, because a minority of citizens incorrectly perceive ‘the government’ to have become ‘tyrannical.’
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Bill of Rights exists to prevent the federal government from infringing individual rights and state’s rights.
> 
> The Second Amendment is an absolute right regarding the federal government. The state governments have not shown a “disturbing propensity to violate the rights of American citizens who reside in the states.”
Click to expand...


Amazing....you missed out on that slavery and civil rights thing.


----------



## Tennyson

rightwinger said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great so let's repeal the entire bill of rights and let the states handle all of it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's just drop the second and third amendments. They are not needed
> 
> States can more than handle it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> States can handle all of them
> 
> SO why have the Bill of Rights at all?
> 
> The right to defend one's self, family and property is as fundamental as the right to free speech
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Bill of Rights exists to safeguard the protected liberties of all the people, of the citizens who reside in the many states, from their fellow citizens who might seek to disadvantage other citizens for unwarranted, capricious reasons.
> 
> Indeed, the majority may not use the Federal government, nor any state government, to violate the rights and protected liberties of a given class of persons for no other reason than who they are.
> 
> In fact, state governments have exhibited a disturbing propensity to violate the rights of American citizens who reside in the states.
> 
> The rights enshrined in the Second Amendment safeguard the individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with militia service, pursuant to the right of lawful self-defense.
> 
> As is the case with other rights, the Second Amendment right is not absolute. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose[]” (_DC v. Heller_), such as the purpose of ‘overthrowing’ through ‘force of arms’ a lawfully installed government functioning with the consent of the people, reflecting the will of the people, because a minority of citizens incorrectly perceive ‘the government’ to have become ‘tyrannical.’
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Bill of Rights exists to prevent the federal government from infringing individual rights and state’s rights.
> 
> The Second Amendment is an absolute right regarding the federal government. The state governments have not shown a “disturbing propensity to violate the rights of American citizens who reside in the states.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Amazing....you missed out on that slavery and civil rights thing.
Click to expand...


What did I miss out on? That slavery is not in the Constitution, that civil rights are not under the purview of the federal government, or that the civil rights acts violates two of the three most basic unalienable rights in the Fifth Amendment?


----------



## Tennyson

There is no causation or correlation between firearm laws and suicide.


----------



## rightwinger

Tennyson said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's just drop the second and third amendments. They are not needed
> 
> States can more than handle it
> 
> 
> 
> States can handle all of them
> 
> SO why have the Bill of Rights at all?
> 
> The right to defend one's self, family and property is as fundamental as the right to free speech
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Bill of Rights exists to safeguard the protected liberties of all the people, of the citizens who reside in the many states, from their fellow citizens who might seek to disadvantage other citizens for unwarranted, capricious reasons.
> 
> Indeed, the majority may not use the Federal government, nor any state government, to violate the rights and protected liberties of a given class of persons for no other reason than who they are.
> 
> In fact, state governments have exhibited a disturbing propensity to violate the rights of American citizens who reside in the states.
> 
> The rights enshrined in the Second Amendment safeguard the individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with militia service, pursuant to the right of lawful self-defense.
> 
> As is the case with other rights, the Second Amendment right is not absolute. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose[]” (_DC v. Heller_), such as the purpose of ‘overthrowing’ through ‘force of arms’ a lawfully installed government functioning with the consent of the people, reflecting the will of the people, because a minority of citizens incorrectly perceive ‘the government’ to have become ‘tyrannical.’
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Bill of Rights exists to prevent the federal government from infringing individual rights and state’s rights.
> 
> The Second Amendment is an absolute right regarding the federal government. The state governments have not shown a “disturbing propensity to violate the rights of American citizens who reside in the states.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Amazing....you missed out on that slavery and civil rights thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What did I miss out on? That slavery is not in the Constitution, that civil rights are not under the purview of the federal government, or that the civil rights acts violates two of the three most basic unalienable rights in the Fifth Amendment?
Click to expand...


Missed out on the 14th amendment didn't you?


----------



## Tennyson

rightwinger said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> States can handle all of them
> 
> SO why have the Bill of Rights at all?
> 
> The right to defend one's self, family and property is as fundamental as the right to free speech
> 
> 
> 
> The Bill of Rights exists to safeguard the protected liberties of all the people, of the citizens who reside in the many states, from their fellow citizens who might seek to disadvantage other citizens for unwarranted, capricious reasons.
> 
> Indeed, the majority may not use the Federal government, nor any state government, to violate the rights and protected liberties of a given class of persons for no other reason than who they are.
> 
> In fact, state governments have exhibited a disturbing propensity to violate the rights of American citizens who reside in the states.
> 
> The rights enshrined in the Second Amendment safeguard the individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with militia service, pursuant to the right of lawful self-defense.
> 
> As is the case with other rights, the Second Amendment right is not absolute. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose[]” (_DC v. Heller_), such as the purpose of ‘overthrowing’ through ‘force of arms’ a lawfully installed government functioning with the consent of the people, reflecting the will of the people, because a minority of citizens incorrectly perceive ‘the government’ to have become ‘tyrannical.’
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Bill of Rights exists to prevent the federal government from infringing individual rights and state’s rights.
> 
> The Second Amendment is an absolute right regarding the federal government. The state governments have not shown a “disturbing propensity to violate the rights of American citizens who reside in the states.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Amazing....you missed out on that slavery and civil rights thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What did I miss out on? That slavery is not in the Constitution, that civil rights are not under the purview of the federal government, or that the civil rights acts violates two of the three most basic unalienable rights in the Fifth Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Missed out on the 14th amendment didn't you?
Click to expand...


Which part did I miss out on?


----------



## Vandalshandle

Spare_change said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> God forbid that I take away some yahoo's right to completely wipe out a Deer Crossing sign without his having to reload.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah because ALL people who own guns do that
> 
> I don't know why it's so hard for you to understand that simply because a person owns a gun he is not responsible for all crimes other people commit with a gun
> 
> I suppose you think because all men have penises that all men are responsible for every rape too
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you fail to understand that every person who ever killed someone with a gun was once an innocent man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SO what?
> 
> You can't punish people for crimes they have not yet committed.  And you can't punish an innocent person for the crimes of another
> 
> But tell you what you volunteer to be castrated because all rapists were once innocent men, give up your driver's license because all drunk drivers were once sober drivers, spend the rest of your life in prison because all criminals were once not criminals at least that way you'l be consistent with your beliefs that all people need to be treated like criminals for future crimes they may or may not commit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not unreasonable to make it illegal for someone to sell a gun without a background check, and it is not unreasonable for a person who knowingly sells a gun to a person who would not pass a background check, to be charged with accessory, if the person that he sold it to commits homicide with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is, in fact, unreasonable ... just because you say it doesn't make it so.
> 
> In fact, if you say it, we can pretty much expect it to be unreasonable.
Click to expand...


Well, Spare, then your position that it should be legal to sell a gun to a man who is both a felon and under a restraining order for threatening his wife's life, pretty much makes it a no brainer that I have nothing more to say to you on the subject.


----------



## ding

frigidweirdo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the US government had a big campaign to disarm native Americans. Can you guess why?   but armed resistance by western tribes did manage to get them the FEW concessions they did get. They forced them out of the more powerful US government by their resistance. Unfortunantly , after they were put on reservations they were
> basicaly lied to and screwed over.   The wounded knee massacre happened during one of those dissarmament forays.  Also, a very high percentage died from disease.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, they were basically at war, surely the US tried to disarm anyone they were at war with.
> 
> Armed resistance got them what? A few concessions, that's saying that no one gets concessions unless they have guns? Rubbish.
> 
> Your argument is still as weak as water.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean YOU believe the founding fathers argument is weaker than water.  I disagree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I don't mean that at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well... It's not my argument I am making.  It is the Founding Father's argument I am re-stating.
> 
> The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.
> 
> "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> "I_f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
> 
> - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.
> 
> "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"
> 
> Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"
> 
> The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.
> 
> "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
> 
> "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
> 
> "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you're not repeating the Founders' arguments. The founders weren't a solid group who all thought the same, so that's impossible.
> 
> Firstly, I didn't say the 2A wasn't the last check on govt tyranny. So quoting all this stuff to show this doesn't do anything. You're not arguing against me. I don't know who you're arguing against, but it seems kind of pointless to tell me this.
Click to expand...

Given that I am using their own words, I'm going to have to disagree with you on that.  See?

The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"I_f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"

Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it._


----------



## ding

frigidweirdo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the US government had a big campaign to disarm native Americans. Can you guess why?   but armed resistance by western tribes did manage to get them the FEW concessions they did get. They forced them out of the more powerful US government by their resistance. Unfortunantly , after they were put on reservations they were
> basicaly lied to and screwed over.   The wounded knee massacre happened during one of those dissarmament forays.  Also, a very high percentage died from disease.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, they were basically at war, surely the US tried to disarm anyone they were at war with.
> 
> Armed resistance got them what? A few concessions, that's saying that no one gets concessions unless they have guns? Rubbish.
> 
> Your argument is still as weak as water.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean YOU believe the founding fathers argument is weaker than water.  I disagree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I don't mean that at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well... It's not my argument I am making.  It is the Founding Father's argument I am re-stating.
> 
> The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.
> 
> "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> "I_f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
> 
> - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.
> 
> "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"
> 
> Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"
> 
> The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.
> 
> "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
> 
> "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
> 
> "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you're not repeating the Founders' arguments. The founders weren't a solid group who all thought the same, so that's impossible.
> 
> Firstly, I didn't say the 2A wasn't the last check on govt tyranny. So quoting all this stuff to show this doesn't do anything. You're not arguing against me. I don't know who you're arguing against, but it seems kind of pointless to tell me this.
Click to expand...

Right, we aren't arguing about that, we are arguing about all of your other arguments.


----------



## ding

rightwinger said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to the FBI's statistics on Crime, in 2014 murders by rifles was 0.12 persons per 100,000 people.
> 
> 
> 
> OK. Let's just ban handguns
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I thought you said you didn't want to ban guns at all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You convinced me otherwise
Click to expand...

You are hilarious.  Most trolls are.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Spare_change said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> God forbid that I take away some yahoo's right to completely wipe out a Deer Crossing sign without his having to reload.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah because ALL people who own guns do that
> 
> I don't know why it's so hard for you to understand that simply because a person owns a gun he is not responsible for all crimes other people commit with a gun
> 
> I suppose you think because all men have penises that all men are responsible for every rape too
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you fail to understand that every person who ever killed someone with a gun was once an innocent man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SO what?
> 
> You can't punish people for crimes they have not yet committed.  And you can't punish an innocent person for the crimes of another
> 
> But tell you what you volunteer to be castrated because all rapists were once innocent men, give up your driver's license because all drunk drivers were once sober drivers, spend the rest of your life in prison because all criminals were once not criminals at least that way you'l be consistent with your beliefs that all people need to be treated like criminals for future crimes they may or may not commit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not unreasonable to make it illegal for someone to sell a gun without a background check, and it is not unreasonable for a person who knowingly sells a gun to a person who would not pass a background check, to be charged with accessory, if the person that he sold it to commits homicide with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is, in fact, unreasonable ... just because you say it doesn't make it so.
> 
> In fact, if you say it, we can pretty much expect it to be unreasonable.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

Background checks and prohibiting felons from possessing firearms are perfectly reasonable and Constitutional, because the Supreme Court makes it so:

“The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” _Ibid_

Conditions and qualifications such as background checks, consistently upheld as not violating the Second Amendment by the courts.

And save the lame, ignorant references to _Dred Scott_, _Plessey v. Fergusson_, the inane ‘argument’ that sometimes the Supreme Court is ‘wrong’ – that fails as a false comparison fallacy, having nothing whatsoever to do with current Second Amendment jurisprudence.


----------



## ding

rightwinger said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great so let's repeal the entire bill of rights and let the states handle all of it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's just drop the second and third amendments. They are not needed
> 
> States can more than handle it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> States can handle all of them
> 
> SO why have the Bill of Rights at all?
> 
> The right to defend one's self, family and property is as fundamental as the right to free speech
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Bill of Rights exists to safeguard the protected liberties of all the people, of the citizens who reside in the many states, from their fellow citizens who might seek to disadvantage other citizens for unwarranted, capricious reasons.
> 
> Indeed, the majority may not use the Federal government, nor any state government, to violate the rights and protected liberties of a given class of persons for no other reason than who they are.
> 
> In fact, state governments have exhibited a disturbing propensity to violate the rights of American citizens who reside in the states.
> 
> The rights enshrined in the Second Amendment safeguard the individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with militia service, pursuant to the right of lawful self-defense.
> 
> As is the case with other rights, the Second Amendment right is not absolute. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose[]” (_DC v. Heller_), such as the purpose of ‘overthrowing’ through ‘force of arms’ a lawfully installed government functioning with the consent of the people, reflecting the will of the people, because a minority of citizens incorrectly perceive ‘the government’ to have become ‘tyrannical.’
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Bill of Rights exists to prevent the federal government from infringing individual rights and state’s rights.
> 
> The Second Amendment is an absolute right regarding the federal government. The state governments have not shown a “disturbing propensity to violate the rights of American citizens who reside in the states.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Amazing....you missed out on that slavery and civil rights thing.
Click to expand...

You mean the part about how the Democratic Party was the party of slavery, racism and segregation?  No.  I didn't miss that part at all.  Are you ready to apologize for it yet?


----------



## ding

rightwinger said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> States can handle all of them
> 
> SO why have the Bill of Rights at all?
> 
> The right to defend one's self, family and property is as fundamental as the right to free speech
> 
> 
> 
> The Bill of Rights exists to safeguard the protected liberties of all the people, of the citizens who reside in the many states, from their fellow citizens who might seek to disadvantage other citizens for unwarranted, capricious reasons.
> 
> Indeed, the majority may not use the Federal government, nor any state government, to violate the rights and protected liberties of a given class of persons for no other reason than who they are.
> 
> In fact, state governments have exhibited a disturbing propensity to violate the rights of American citizens who reside in the states.
> 
> The rights enshrined in the Second Amendment safeguard the individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with militia service, pursuant to the right of lawful self-defense.
> 
> As is the case with other rights, the Second Amendment right is not absolute. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose[]” (_DC v. Heller_), such as the purpose of ‘overthrowing’ through ‘force of arms’ a lawfully installed government functioning with the consent of the people, reflecting the will of the people, because a minority of citizens incorrectly perceive ‘the government’ to have become ‘tyrannical.’
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Bill of Rights exists to prevent the federal government from infringing individual rights and state’s rights.
> 
> The Second Amendment is an absolute right regarding the federal government. The state governments have not shown a “disturbing propensity to violate the rights of American citizens who reside in the states.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Amazing....you missed out on that slavery and civil rights thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What did I miss out on? That slavery is not in the Constitution, that civil rights are not under the purview of the federal government, or that the civil rights acts violates two of the three most basic unalienable rights in the Fifth Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Missed out on the 14th amendment didn't you?
Click to expand...

I doubt Tennyson misses anything on legality or history.  Tennyson has already schooled you on the 14th.  Are you seriously coming back for more?  The last time you ran with your tail tucked between your legs, lol.


----------



## Yarddog

ding said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's just drop the second and third amendments. They are not needed
> 
> States can more than handle it
> 
> 
> 
> States can handle all of them
> 
> SO why have the Bill of Rights at all?
> 
> The right to defend one's self, family and property is as fundamental as the right to free speech
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Bill of Rights exists to safeguard the protected liberties of all the people, of the citizens who reside in the many states, from their fellow citizens who might seek to disadvantage other citizens for unwarranted, capricious reasons.
> 
> Indeed, the majority may not use the Federal government, nor any state government, to violate the rights and protected liberties of a given class of persons for no other reason than who they are.
> 
> In fact, state governments have exhibited a disturbing propensity to violate the rights of American citizens who reside in the states.
> 
> The rights enshrined in the Second Amendment safeguard the individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with militia service, pursuant to the right of lawful self-defense.
> 
> As is the case with other rights, the Second Amendment right is not absolute. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose[]” (_DC v. Heller_), such as the purpose of ‘overthrowing’ through ‘force of arms’ a lawfully installed government functioning with the consent of the people, reflecting the will of the people, because a minority of citizens incorrectly perceive ‘the government’ to have become ‘tyrannical.’
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Bill of Rights exists to prevent the federal government from infringing individual rights and state’s rights.
> 
> The Second Amendment is an absolute right regarding the federal government. The state governments have not shown a “disturbing propensity to violate the rights of American citizens who reside in the states.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Amazing....you missed out on that slavery and civil rights thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean the part about how the Democratic Party was the party of slavery, racism and segregation?  No.  I didn't miss that part at all.  Are you ready to apologize for it yet?
Click to expand...



They also lynched about 1000 + republicans during the struggle for civil rights but those are all but forgotten victims of the democratic KKK


----------



## ding

Yarddog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> States can handle all of them
> 
> SO why have the Bill of Rights at all?
> 
> The right to defend one's self, family and property is as fundamental as the right to free speech
> 
> 
> 
> The Bill of Rights exists to safeguard the protected liberties of all the people, of the citizens who reside in the many states, from their fellow citizens who might seek to disadvantage other citizens for unwarranted, capricious reasons.
> 
> Indeed, the majority may not use the Federal government, nor any state government, to violate the rights and protected liberties of a given class of persons for no other reason than who they are.
> 
> In fact, state governments have exhibited a disturbing propensity to violate the rights of American citizens who reside in the states.
> 
> The rights enshrined in the Second Amendment safeguard the individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with militia service, pursuant to the right of lawful self-defense.
> 
> As is the case with other rights, the Second Amendment right is not absolute. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose[]” (_DC v. Heller_), such as the purpose of ‘overthrowing’ through ‘force of arms’ a lawfully installed government functioning with the consent of the people, reflecting the will of the people, because a minority of citizens incorrectly perceive ‘the government’ to have become ‘tyrannical.’
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Bill of Rights exists to prevent the federal government from infringing individual rights and state’s rights.
> 
> The Second Amendment is an absolute right regarding the federal government. The state governments have not shown a “disturbing propensity to violate the rights of American citizens who reside in the states.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Amazing....you missed out on that slavery and civil rights thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean the part about how the Democratic Party was the party of slavery, racism and segregation?  No.  I didn't miss that part at all.  Are you ready to apologize for it yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They also lynched about 1000 + republicans during the struggle for civil rights but those are all but forgotten victims of the democratic KKK
Click to expand...

There are 13 Congressional Volumes which detail how the KKK was formed as the terrorist wing of the Democratic Party for the express purpose of taking back their statehouses from  BLACK REPUBLICANS through force and intimidation.

Full text of "Report of the Joint select committee appointed to inquire in to the condition of affairs in the late insurrectionary states : so far as regards the execution of the laws, and the safety of the lives and property of the citizens of the United States and Testimony taken"

Black political participation in Reconstruction | The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History

"Blacks made up the overwhelming majority of southern Republican voters, forming a coalition with “carpetbaggers” and “scalawags” (derogatory terms referring to recent arrivals from the North and southern white Republicans, respectively). A total of 265 African-American delegates were elected, more than 100 of whom had been born into slavery. Almost half of the elected black delegates served in South Carolina and Louisiana, where blacks had the longest history of political organization; in most other states, African Americans were underrepresented compared to their population. In all, 16 African Americans served in the U.S. Congress during Reconstruction; more than 600 more were elected to the state legislatures, and hundreds more held local offices across the South."

Articles: The Secret Racist History of the Democratic Party

"In almost every Southern state, the Republican Party was actually formed by blacks, not whites. Case in point is Houston, Texas, where 150 blacks and 20 whites created the Republican Party of Texas. But perhaps most telling of all with respect to the Republican Party’s achievements is that black men were continuously elected to public office.  For example, 42 blacks were elected to the Texas legislature, 112 in Mississippi, 190 in South Carolina, 95 representatives and 32 senators in Louisiana, and many more elected in other states -- all Republican. Democrats didn’t elect their first black American to the U.S. House until 1935!"

"By the mid-1860s, the Republican Party’s alliance with blacks had caused a noticeable strain on the Democrats’ struggle for electoral significance in the post-Civil War era.  This prompted the Democratic Party in 1866 to develop a new pseudo-secret political action group whose sole purpose was to help gain control of the electorate.  The new group was known simply by their initials, KKK (Ku Klux Klan).  This political relationship was nationally solidified shortly thereafter during the 1868 Democratic National Convention when former Civil War General Nathan Bedford Forrest was honored as the KKK’s first Grand Wizard.  But don’t bother checking the Democratic National Committee’s website for proof.  For many years, even up through the 2012 Presidential Election, the DNC had omitted all related history from 1848 to 1900 from their timeline -- half a century worth!  Nevertheless, this sordid history is still well documented.  There’s even a thirteen-volume set of Congressional investigations dating from 1872 detailing the Klan’s connection to the   Democratic Party.  The official documents, titled Report of the Joint Select Committee to Inquire Into the Condition of Affairs in the Late Insurrectionary States, irrefutably proves the KKK’s prominent role in the Democratic Party."

September 3, 1868

25 African-Americans in the Georgia legislature, all Republicans, were expelled by the Democrat majority.  They were later reinstated by a Republican-controlled Congress.

September 12, 1868

Civil rights activist Tunis Campbell and all other African-Americans in the Georgia Senate – all Republicans – were expelled by the Democrat majority.  They were later be reinstated by a Republican-controlled Congress.

October 7, 1868

Republicans denounce the Democratic Party’s national campaign theme: “This is a white man’s country: Let white men rule”.

October 22, 1868

While campaigning for re-election, U.S. Rep. James Hinds (R-AR) is assassinated by Democrat terrorists who were organized as the Ku Klux Klan.

December 10, 1869

Republican Gov. John Campbell of Wyoming Territory signs First-in-nation law granting women the right to vote and to hold public office.

February 3, 1870

After passing the U.S. House of Representatives with 98% Republican support and 97% Democrat opposition, the Republicans’ 15th Amendment is ratified, which granted the right to vote to all Americans regardless of race.



May 31, 1870

President Ulysses S. Grant signs the Republicans’ Enforcement Act, providing stiff penalties for depriving civil rights to any Americans.

June 22, 1870

The Republican-controlled Congress creates the U.S. Department of Justice to safeguard the civil rights of African-Americans against Democrats in the South.

September 6, 1870

Women vote in Wyoming during the first election after women’s suffrage legislation was signed into law by Republican Gov. John Campbell.

February 28, 1871

Republican Congress passes Enforcement Act providing federal protection for African-American voters.

April 20, 1871

The Republican-controlled Congress enacts the Ku Klux Klan Act, outlawing Democratic Party-affiliated terrorist groups which oppressed African-Americans.

October 10, 1871

Following warnings by Philadelphia Democrats against blacks voting, African-American Republican civil rights activist Octavius Catto was murdered by a Democratic Party operative, and his military funeral was attended by thousands.

October 18, 1871

After violence was committed against Republicans in South Carolina, Republican President Ulysses S. Grant deploys U.S. troops to combat Democrat terrorists who formed the Ku Klux Klan.

November 18, 1872

Susan B. Anthony arrested for voting, after boasting to Elizabeth Cady Stanton that she voted for “the Republican ticket, straight”.

January 17, 1874

Armed Democrats seize the Texas state government, ending Republican efforts to racially integrate the Texas government.

September 14, 1874

Democrat white supremacists seize Louisiana statehouse in attempt to overthrow the racially-integrated administration of Republican Governor William Kellogg.  27 people were killed.


March 1, 1875

The Civil Rights Act of 1875, guaranteeing access to public accommodations without regard to race, was signed by Republican President Ulysses S. Grant.  The law passed with 92% Republican support over 100% Democrat opposition.


"Black men participated in Georgia politics for the first time during Congressional Reconstruction (1867-76).  Between 1867 and 1872 sixty-nine African Americans served as delegates to the constitutional convention (1867-68) or as members of the state legislature.


Democrats used terror, intimidation, and the Ku Klux Klan to "redeem" the state. One quarter of the black legislators were killed, threatened, beaten, or jailed. In the December 1870 elections the Democrats won an overwhelming victory. In 1906 W. H. Rogers from McIntosh County was the last black legislator to be elected before blacks were legally disenfranchised in 1908."

Black Legislators during Reconstruction


"One of the most vivid examples of collusion between the KKK and Democratic Party was when Democrat Senator Wade Hampton ran for the governorship of South Carolina in 1876.  The Klan put into action a battle plan to help Democrats win, stating: “Every Democrat must feel honor bound to control the vote of at least one Negro by intimidation….  Democrats must go in as large numbers…and well-armed.”  An issue of Harper’s Weekly that same year illustrated this mindset with a depiction of two white Democrats standing next to a black man while pointing a gun at him.  At the bottom of the depiction is a caption that reads: “Of Course He Wants To Vote The Democratic Ticket!”" 

"The Klan’s primary mission was to intimidate Republicans -- black and white. In South Carolina, for example, the Klan even passed out “push cards” -- a hit list of 63 (50 blacks and 13 whites) “Radicals” of the legislature pictured on one side and their names listed on the other.  Democrats called Republicans radicals not just because they were a powerful political force, but because they allowed blacks to participate in the political process.  Apparently, this was all too much for Democrats to bear.


By 1875, Republicans, both black and white, had worked together to pass over two dozen civil rights bills.  Unfortunately, their momentum came to a screeching halt in 1876 when the Democratic Party took control of Congress.  Hell bent on preventing blacks from voting, Southern Democrats devised nearly a dozen shady schemes, like requiring literacy tests, misleading election procedures, redrawing election lines, changing polling locations, creating white-only primaries, and even rewriting state constitutions.  Talk about disenfranchising black voters!


There were also lynchings, but not what you might think. According to the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law, between 1882 and 1964 an estimated 3,446 blacks and 1,279 whites were lynched at the hands of the Klan."


Articles: The Secret Racist History of the Democratic Party


----------



## Skull Pilot

Vandalshandle said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And seriously what are the odds of that happening?
> 
> 3 or 4 out of 350 million
> 
> That is not a compelling enough reason to deny law abiding people any size magazine for their weapons they want
> 
> People who own guns, follow every law and are responsible in their ownership are not responsible for the crimes of another
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God forbid that I take away some yahoo's right to completely wipe out a Deer Crossing sign without his having to reload.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah because ALL people who own guns do that
> 
> I don't know why it's so hard for you to understand that simply because a person owns a gun he is not responsible for all crimes other people commit with a gun
> 
> I suppose you think because all men have penises that all men are responsible for every rape too
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you fail to understand that every person who ever killed someone with a gun was once an innocent man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SO what?
> 
> You can't punish people for crimes they have not yet committed.  And you can't punish an innocent person for the crimes of another
> 
> But tell you what you volunteer to be castrated because all rapists were once innocent men, give up your driver's license because all drunk drivers were once sober drivers, spend the rest of your life in prison because all criminals were once not criminals at least that way you'l be consistent with your beliefs that all people need to be treated like criminals for future crimes they may or may not commit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not unreasonable to make it illegal for someone to sell a gun without a background check, and it is not unreasonable for a person who knowingly sells a gun to a person who would not pass a background check, to be charged with accessory, if the person that he sold it to commits homicide with it.
Click to expand...

Nice change of subject
I never said anything about not having background checks did I?
And it already is illegal to knowingly sell a gun to anyone who is legally ineligible to own one

But for anyone who passes background checks as I have multiple times there is no valid reason to tell me I can't own a specific semiautomatic rifle or a magazine with more than a 10 round capacity


----------



## Skull Pilot

rightwinger said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's only because you believe suicides are gun deaths instead of suicides.  A sure sign of too much estrogen.  You may want to cut back on soy products in your diet.
> 
> 
> 
> Dead is dead.....Boom
> Brains all over the place
> 
> Thank God for the second amendment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The second amendment has nothing to do with suicides in fact more than half of all suicides are committed with means other than guns
> 
> Suicide is a choice not a crime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet guns are such an effective tool. Less than one percent of attempts are non fatal. Take an overdose of pills and you have an hour to change your mind. Pull a trigger and you have a split second
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what?
> 
> Suicide is a choice not a crime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So there is no reason to encourage it
Click to expand...

Guns don't encourage suicide more than half of all suicides are committed without guns


----------



## Skull Pilot

rightwinger said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And seriously what are the odds of that happening?
> 
> 3 or 4 out of 350 million
> 
> That is not a compelling enough reason to deny law abiding people any size magazine for their weapons they want
> 
> People who own guns, follow every law and are responsible in their ownership are not responsible for the crimes of another
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God forbid that I take away some yahoo's right to completely wipe out a Deer Crossing sign without his having to reload.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah because ALL people who own guns do that
> 
> I don't know why it's so hard for you to understand that simply because a person owns a gun he is not responsible for all crimes other people commit with a gun
> 
> I suppose you think because all men have penises that all men are responsible for every rape too
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you fail to understand that every person who ever killed someone with a gun was once an innocent man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SO what?
> 
> You can't punish people for crimes they have not yet committed.  And you can't punish an innocent person for the crimes of another
> 
> But tell you what you volunteer to be castrated because all rapists were once innocent men, give up your driver's license because all drunk drivers were once sober drivers, spend the rest of your life in prison because all criminals were once not criminals at least that way you'l be consistent with your beliefs that all people need to be treated like criminals for future crimes they may or may not commit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure you can....even if you think preventing access to weapons is "punishment"
> 
> Should someone convicted of beating his wife be allowed to trot down to the local gun shop after having a fight?
Click to expand...

It is illegal for anyone with a domestic violence conviction to buy a gun
You might want to learn the existing laws before you say we need more.

And restricting my behavior even though I have committed no crime is punishment
tell you what why don't you ground your kids and don't let them out of the house until they are 18 because they might break your house rules in the future


----------



## Skull Pilot

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  The right to defend one's self family and property should not be left to the whim of the States. That is a right on par with every other right enumerated in the Constitution.
> 
> The government cannot and has no legal obligation to protect you, your family or your property
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God bless America!
> 
> A country built on the rights of states to set there own rules. There is no need for Federal gun laws......Militias are obsolete
> 
> Let the states decide how much control they need over guns
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great so let's repeal the entire bill of rights and let the states handle all of it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's just drop the second and third amendments. They are not needed
> 
> States can more than handle it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> States can handle all of them
> 
> SO why have the Bill of Rights at all?
> 
> The right to defend one's self, family and property is as fundamental as the right to free speech
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Bill of Rights exists to safeguard the protected liberties of all the people, of the citizens who reside in the many states, from their fellow citizens who might seek to disadvantage other citizens for unwarranted, capricious reasons.
> 
> Indeed, the majority may not use the Federal government, nor any state government, to violate the rights and protected liberties of a given class of persons for no other reason than who they are.
> 
> In fact, state governments have exhibited a disturbing propensity to violate the rights of American citizens who reside in the states.
> 
> The rights enshrined in the Second Amendment safeguard the individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with militia service, pursuant to the right of lawful self-defense.
> 
> As is the case with other rights, the Second Amendment right is not absolute. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose[]” (_DC v. Heller_), such as the purpose of ‘overthrowing’ through ‘force of arms’ a lawfully installed government functioning with the consent of the people, reflecting the will of the people, because a minority of citizens incorrectly perceive ‘the government’ to have become ‘tyrannical.’
Click to expand...


I was using sarcasm to refute the idioticsuggestion that the second amendment should be abolished and gun ownership left to the states


----------



## rightwinger

ding said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's just drop the second and third amendments. They are not needed
> 
> States can more than handle it
> 
> 
> 
> States can handle all of them
> 
> SO why have the Bill of Rights at all?
> 
> The right to defend one's self, family and property is as fundamental as the right to free speech
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Bill of Rights exists to safeguard the protected liberties of all the people, of the citizens who reside in the many states, from their fellow citizens who might seek to disadvantage other citizens for unwarranted, capricious reasons.
> 
> Indeed, the majority may not use the Federal government, nor any state government, to violate the rights and protected liberties of a given class of persons for no other reason than who they are.
> 
> In fact, state governments have exhibited a disturbing propensity to violate the rights of American citizens who reside in the states.
> 
> The rights enshrined in the Second Amendment safeguard the individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with militia service, pursuant to the right of lawful self-defense.
> 
> As is the case with other rights, the Second Amendment right is not absolute. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose[]” (_DC v. Heller_), such as the purpose of ‘overthrowing’ through ‘force of arms’ a lawfully installed government functioning with the consent of the people, reflecting the will of the people, because a minority of citizens incorrectly perceive ‘the government’ to have become ‘tyrannical.’
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Bill of Rights exists to prevent the federal government from infringing individual rights and state’s rights.
> 
> The Second Amendment is an absolute right regarding the federal government. The state governments have not shown a “disturbing propensity to violate the rights of American citizens who reside in the states.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Amazing....you missed out on that slavery and civil rights thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean the part about how the Democratic Party was the party of slavery, racism and segregation?  No.  I didn't miss that part at all.  Are you ready to apologize for it yet?
Click to expand...

Amazing how you confuse a North/South issue with partisan politics

You failed American History didn't you?


----------



## rightwinger

ding said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bill of Rights exists to safeguard the protected liberties of all the people, of the citizens who reside in the many states, from their fellow citizens who might seek to disadvantage other citizens for unwarranted, capricious reasons.
> 
> Indeed, the majority may not use the Federal government, nor any state government, to violate the rights and protected liberties of a given class of persons for no other reason than who they are.
> 
> In fact, state governments have exhibited a disturbing propensity to violate the rights of American citizens who reside in the states.
> 
> The rights enshrined in the Second Amendment safeguard the individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with militia service, pursuant to the right of lawful self-defense.
> 
> As is the case with other rights, the Second Amendment right is not absolute. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose[]” (_DC v. Heller_), such as the purpose of ‘overthrowing’ through ‘force of arms’ a lawfully installed government functioning with the consent of the people, reflecting the will of the people, because a minority of citizens incorrectly perceive ‘the government’ to have become ‘tyrannical.’
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Bill of Rights exists to prevent the federal government from infringing individual rights and state’s rights.
> 
> The Second Amendment is an absolute right regarding the federal government. The state governments have not shown a “disturbing propensity to violate the rights of American citizens who reside in the states.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Amazing....you missed out on that slavery and civil rights thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What did I miss out on? That slavery is not in the Constitution, that civil rights are not under the purview of the federal government, or that the civil rights acts violates two of the three most basic unalienable rights in the Fifth Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Missed out on the 14th amendment didn't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I doubt Tennyson misses anything on legality or history.  Tennyson has already schooled you on the 14th.  Are you seriously coming back for more?  The last time you ran with your tail tucked between your legs, lol.
Click to expand...

He did?

Maybe he needs to "school" the Supreme Court on the 14th too


----------



## Vandalshandle

Skull Pilot said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> God forbid that I take away some yahoo's right to completely wipe out a Deer Crossing sign without his having to reload.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah because ALL people who own guns do that
> 
> I don't know why it's so hard for you to understand that simply because a person owns a gun he is not responsible for all crimes other people commit with a gun
> 
> I suppose you think because all men have penises that all men are responsible for every rape too
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you fail to understand that every person who ever killed someone with a gun was once an innocent man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SO what?
> 
> You can't punish people for crimes they have not yet committed.  And you can't punish an innocent person for the crimes of another
> 
> But tell you what you volunteer to be castrated because all rapists were once innocent men, give up your driver's license because all drunk drivers were once sober drivers, spend the rest of your life in prison because all criminals were once not criminals at least that way you'l be consistent with your beliefs that all people need to be treated like criminals for future crimes they may or may not commit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not unreasonable to make it illegal for someone to sell a gun without a background check, and it is not unreasonable for a person who knowingly sells a gun to a person who would not pass a background check, to be charged with accessory, if the person that he sold it to commits homicide with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice change of subject
> I never said anything about not having background checks did I?
> And it already is illegal to knowingly sell a gun to anyone who is legally ineligible to own one
> 
> But for anyone who passes background checks as I have multiple times there is no valid reason to tell me I can't own a specific semiautomatic rifle or a magazine with more than a 10 round capacity
Click to expand...

It is not against the law for you to sell your gun to a stranger with no questions asked, unless you are a licensed dealer. 

Since I am a sheriff Aucillary Volunteer, and patrol in uniform in a police car, that puts me squarely on the side of the law. You have clearly stated that it is unreasonable to demand that an individual do a background check on a gun buyer, which only benefits convicted felons, and others that are not able to buy from a licensed dealer. That puts you squarely on the side of the criminal. That being the case, I have no use for further discussion with you, just like I have no need for philosophical discussions with criminals.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Skull Pilot said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> God forbid that I take away some yahoo's right to completely wipe out a Deer Crossing sign without his having to reload.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah because ALL people who own guns do that
> 
> I don't know why it's so hard for you to understand that simply because a person owns a gun he is not responsible for all crimes other people commit with a gun
> 
> I suppose you think because all men have penises that all men are responsible for every rape too
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you fail to understand that every person who ever killed someone with a gun was once an innocent man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SO what?
> 
> You can't punish people for crimes they have not yet committed.  And you can't punish an innocent person for the crimes of another
> 
> But tell you what you volunteer to be castrated because all rapists were once innocent men, give up your driver's license because all drunk drivers were once sober drivers, spend the rest of your life in prison because all criminals were once not criminals at least that way you'l be consistent with your beliefs that all people need to be treated like criminals for future crimes they may or may not commit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure you can....even if you think preventing access to weapons is "punishment"
> 
> Should someone convicted of beating his wife be allowed to trot down to the local gun shop after having a fight?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is illegal for anyone with a domestic violence conviction to buy a gun
> You might want to learn the existing laws before you say we need more.
> 
> And restricting my behavior even though I have committed no crime is punishment
> tell you what why don't you ground your kids and don't let them out of the house until they are 18 because they might break your house rules in the future
Click to expand...


But, it is NOT illegal from you to sell him a gun. Be aware that those of us on the side of civilization believe that you are guilty of accessory to felony homicide if we can prove you knowingly sold to someone who killed someone with it, and by requiring you to do a background check, we would be able to prove it.


----------



## ding

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah because ALL people who own guns do that
> 
> I don't know why it's so hard for you to understand that simply because a person owns a gun he is not responsible for all crimes other people commit with a gun
> 
> I suppose you think because all men have penises that all men are responsible for every rape too
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you fail to understand that every person who ever killed someone with a gun was once an innocent man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SO what?
> 
> You can't punish people for crimes they have not yet committed.  And you can't punish an innocent person for the crimes of another
> 
> But tell you what you volunteer to be castrated because all rapists were once innocent men, give up your driver's license because all drunk drivers were once sober drivers, spend the rest of your life in prison because all criminals were once not criminals at least that way you'l be consistent with your beliefs that all people need to be treated like criminals for future crimes they may or may not commit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not unreasonable to make it illegal for someone to sell a gun without a background check, and it is not unreasonable for a person who knowingly sells a gun to a person who would not pass a background check, to be charged with accessory, if the person that he sold it to commits homicide with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is, in fact, unreasonable ... just because you say it doesn't make it so.
> 
> In fact, if you say it, we can pretty much expect it to be unreasonable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Background checks and prohibiting felons from possessing firearms are perfectly reasonable and Constitutional, because the Supreme Court makes it so:
> 
> “The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” _Ibid_
> 
> Conditions and qualifications such as background checks, consistently upheld as not violating the Second Amendment by the courts.
> 
> And save the lame, ignorant references to _Dred Scott_, _Plessey v. Fergusson_, the inane ‘argument’ that sometimes the Supreme Court is ‘wrong’ – that fails as a false comparison fallacy, having nothing whatsoever to do with current Second Amendment jurisprudence.
Click to expand...

I saw where you thought it was funny that the Democrats lynched black people.  You are messed up.


----------



## ding

rightwinger said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> States can handle all of them
> 
> SO why have the Bill of Rights at all?
> 
> The right to defend one's self, family and property is as fundamental as the right to free speech
> 
> 
> 
> The Bill of Rights exists to safeguard the protected liberties of all the people, of the citizens who reside in the many states, from their fellow citizens who might seek to disadvantage other citizens for unwarranted, capricious reasons.
> 
> Indeed, the majority may not use the Federal government, nor any state government, to violate the rights and protected liberties of a given class of persons for no other reason than who they are.
> 
> In fact, state governments have exhibited a disturbing propensity to violate the rights of American citizens who reside in the states.
> 
> The rights enshrined in the Second Amendment safeguard the individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with militia service, pursuant to the right of lawful self-defense.
> 
> As is the case with other rights, the Second Amendment right is not absolute. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose[]” (_DC v. Heller_), such as the purpose of ‘overthrowing’ through ‘force of arms’ a lawfully installed government functioning with the consent of the people, reflecting the will of the people, because a minority of citizens incorrectly perceive ‘the government’ to have become ‘tyrannical.’
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Bill of Rights exists to prevent the federal government from infringing individual rights and state’s rights.
> 
> The Second Amendment is an absolute right regarding the federal government. The state governments have not shown a “disturbing propensity to violate the rights of American citizens who reside in the states.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Amazing....you missed out on that slavery and civil rights thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean the part about how the Democratic Party was the party of slavery, racism and segregation?  No.  I didn't miss that part at all.  Are you ready to apologize for it yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amazing how you confuse a North/South issue with partisan politics
> 
> You failed American History didn't you?
Click to expand...

It is amazing that you don't understand your racist history (i.e. the racist history of the Democratic Party).

The Democratic Party's Two-Facedness  of Race Relations | Huffington Post

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1072053/posts


----------



## rightwinger

ding said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bill of Rights exists to safeguard the protected liberties of all the people, of the citizens who reside in the many states, from their fellow citizens who might seek to disadvantage other citizens for unwarranted, capricious reasons.
> 
> Indeed, the majority may not use the Federal government, nor any state government, to violate the rights and protected liberties of a given class of persons for no other reason than who they are.
> 
> In fact, state governments have exhibited a disturbing propensity to violate the rights of American citizens who reside in the states.
> 
> The rights enshrined in the Second Amendment safeguard the individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with militia service, pursuant to the right of lawful self-defense.
> 
> As is the case with other rights, the Second Amendment right is not absolute. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose[]” (_DC v. Heller_), such as the purpose of ‘overthrowing’ through ‘force of arms’ a lawfully installed government functioning with the consent of the people, reflecting the will of the people, because a minority of citizens incorrectly perceive ‘the government’ to have become ‘tyrannical.’
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Bill of Rights exists to prevent the federal government from infringing individual rights and state’s rights.
> 
> The Second Amendment is an absolute right regarding the federal government. The state governments have not shown a “disturbing propensity to violate the rights of American citizens who reside in the states.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Amazing....you missed out on that slavery and civil rights thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean the part about how the Democratic Party was the party of slavery, racism and segregation?  No.  I didn't miss that part at all.  Are you ready to apologize for it yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amazing how you confuse a North/South issue with partisan politics
> 
> You failed American History didn't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is amazing that you don't understand your racist history (i.e. the racist history of the Democratic Party).
> 
> The Democratic Party's Two-Facedness  of Race Relations | Huffington Post
> 
> The History of Black Voting Rights [Great read!]
Click to expand...

LBJ did more for Civil Rights than any President since Lincoln


----------



## ding

rightwinger said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bill of Rights exists to prevent the federal government from infringing individual rights and state’s rights.
> 
> The Second Amendment is an absolute right regarding the federal government. The state governments have not shown a “disturbing propensity to violate the rights of American citizens who reside in the states.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing....you missed out on that slavery and civil rights thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean the part about how the Democratic Party was the party of slavery, racism and segregation?  No.  I didn't miss that part at all.  Are you ready to apologize for it yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amazing how you confuse a North/South issue with partisan politics
> 
> You failed American History didn't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is amazing that you don't understand your racist history (i.e. the racist history of the Democratic Party).
> 
> The Democratic Party's Two-Facedness  of Race Relations | Huffington Post
> 
> The History of Black Voting Rights [Great read!]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LBJ did more for Civil Rights than any President since Lincoln
Click to expand...

Really?  What did he do and how did he do it exactly?


----------



## rightwinger

ding said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing....you missed out on that slavery and civil rights thing.
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the part about how the Democratic Party was the party of slavery, racism and segregation?  No.  I didn't miss that part at all.  Are you ready to apologize for it yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amazing how you confuse a North/South issue with partisan politics
> 
> You failed American History didn't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is amazing that you don't understand your racist history (i.e. the racist history of the Democratic Party).
> 
> The Democratic Party's Two-Facedness  of Race Relations | Huffington Post
> 
> The History of Black Voting Rights [Great read!]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LBJ did more for Civil Rights than any President since Lincoln
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really?  What did he do and how did he do it exactly?
Click to expand...

The Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Acts would not have passed without LBJ pushing it through Congress

LBJ signed it

What have Republicans done for Civil Rights in the last 50 years?


----------



## ding

rightwinger said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bill of Rights exists to prevent the federal government from infringing individual rights and state’s rights.
> 
> The Second Amendment is an absolute right regarding the federal government. The state governments have not shown a “disturbing propensity to violate the rights of American citizens who reside in the states.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing....you missed out on that slavery and civil rights thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean the part about how the Democratic Party was the party of slavery, racism and segregation?  No.  I didn't miss that part at all.  Are you ready to apologize for it yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amazing how you confuse a North/South issue with partisan politics
> 
> You failed American History didn't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is amazing that you don't understand your racist history (i.e. the racist history of the Democratic Party).
> 
> The Democratic Party's Two-Facedness  of Race Relations | Huffington Post
> 
> The History of Black Voting Rights [Great read!]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LBJ did more for Civil Rights than any President since Lincoln
Click to expand...


“*These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.* For if we don’t move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there’ll be no way of stopping them, we’ll lose the filibuster and there’ll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It’ll be Reconstruction all over again.”

Lyndon Johnson

The Democratic Party's Two-Facedness of Race Relations | Huffington Post

Master of the Senate: The Years of Lyndon Johnson III, By Robert A. Caro, p662


----------



## ding

rightwinger said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the part about how the Democratic Party was the party of slavery, racism and segregation?  No.  I didn't miss that part at all.  Are you ready to apologize for it yet?
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing how you confuse a North/South issue with partisan politics
> 
> You failed American History didn't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is amazing that you don't understand your racist history (i.e. the racist history of the Democratic Party).
> 
> The Democratic Party's Two-Facedness  of Race Relations | Huffington Post
> 
> The History of Black Voting Rights [Great read!]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LBJ did more for Civil Rights than any President since Lincoln
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really?  What did he do and how did he do it exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Acts would not have passed without LBJ pushing it through Congress
> 
> LBJ signed it
> 
> What have Republicans done for Civil Rights in the last 50 years?
Click to expand...

It seems you don't know the whole story.  It seems all you can say is that he signed a piece of paper.  Surely you can tell me more, right?


----------



## rightwinger

ding said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing....you missed out on that slavery and civil rights thing.
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the part about how the Democratic Party was the party of slavery, racism and segregation?  No.  I didn't miss that part at all.  Are you ready to apologize for it yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amazing how you confuse a North/South issue with partisan politics
> 
> You failed American History didn't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is amazing that you don't understand your racist history (i.e. the racist history of the Democratic Party).
> 
> The Democratic Party's Two-Facedness  of Race Relations | Huffington Post
> 
> The History of Black Voting Rights [Great read!]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LBJ did more for Civil Rights than any President since Lincoln
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> “These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don’t move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there’ll be no way of stopping them, we’ll lose the filibuster and there’ll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It’ll be Reconstruction all over again.”
> 
> Lyndon Johnson
> 
> The Democratic Party's Two-Facedness of Race Relations | Huffington Post
> 
> Master of the Senate: The Years of Lyndon Johnson III, By Robert A. Caro, p662
Click to expand...

LBJ was a master manipulator

He spoke the language that the other legislator needed to hear. He would say whatever needed to be said to get the vote he needed.  He talked fear of God to the bible thumpers, social justice to liberals and racial accommodation to the racists

In the end, LBJ got the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act passed. I doubt if JFK could have gotten it done


----------



## rightwinger

ding said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing how you confuse a North/South issue with partisan politics
> 
> You failed American History didn't you?
> 
> 
> 
> It is amazing that you don't understand your racist history (i.e. the racist history of the Democratic Party).
> 
> The Democratic Party's Two-Facedness  of Race Relations | Huffington Post
> 
> The History of Black Voting Rights [Great read!]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LBJ did more for Civil Rights than any President since Lincoln
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really?  What did he do and how did he do it exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Acts would not have passed without LBJ pushing it through Congress
> 
> LBJ signed it
> 
> What have Republicans done for Civil Rights in the last 50 years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It seems you don't know the whole story.  It seems all you can say is that he signed a piece of paper.  Surely you can tell me more, right?
Click to expand...


He did more than sign a piece of paper. He fought to keep that bill from getting watered down, he bullied Congressmen, called in favors......it never would have passed without LBJ


----------



## ding

rightwinger said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is amazing that you don't understand your racist history (i.e. the racist history of the Democratic Party).
> 
> The Democratic Party's Two-Facedness  of Race Relations | Huffington Post
> 
> The History of Black Voting Rights [Great read!]
> 
> 
> 
> LBJ did more for Civil Rights than any President since Lincoln
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really?  What did he do and how did he do it exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Acts would not have passed without LBJ pushing it through Congress
> 
> LBJ signed it
> 
> What have Republicans done for Civil Rights in the last 50 years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It seems you don't know the whole story.  It seems all you can say is that he signed a piece of paper.  Surely you can tell me more, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He did more than sign a piece of paper. He fought to keep that bill from getting watered down, he bullied Congressmen, called in favors......it never would have passed without LBJ
Click to expand...

*Republican Senator Everett Dirksen – The Key To Modern-era Civil Rights Legislation
It was Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois, not Democrat President Lyndon Johnson, who pushed through the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act.* In fact, Dirksen was instrumental in the passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964, 1965 and 1968. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. hailed Senator Dirksen’s “able and courageous Leadership”, and "The Chicago Defender”, the largest black-owned daily at that time, praised Senator Dirksen “for the grand manner of his generalship behind the passage of the best civil rights measures that have ever been enacted into law since Reconstruction”.

The chief opponents of the 1964 Civil Rights Act were Democrat Senators Sam Ervin, Albert Gore, Sr. and Robert Byrd, a former official in the Ku Klux Klan. None of these racist Democrats became Republicans.


----------



## ding

*In 1957, and then again in 1960, Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower made bold civil rights proposals to increase black voting rights and protections. *[133] *Since Congress was solidly in the hands of the Democrats, they cut the heart out of his bills before passing weak, watered-down versions of his proposals. *[134] Nevertheless, to focus national attention upon the plight of blacks, Eisenhower started a civil rights commission and was the first President to appoint a black to an executive position in the White House. [135]

[133] The Civil Rights Act of 1964: The Passage of the Low that Ended Racial Segregation, Robert D. Loevy, editor (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1997), pp. 26, 27, 33; see also Civil Rights — 1957: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights of the Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate Eighty-Fifth Congress First Session (Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office, 1960), pp. 125-131; Civil Rights Act of 1960: Hearings Before the Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate Eighty Sixth Congress Second Session on H.R. 8601 (Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1960), pp. 2-7.

[134] The Civil Rights Act of 1964, pp. 26, 27, 28, 30, 31.

[135] The White House Historical Association online, “African Americans and the White House: the 1950s”


----------



## ding




----------



## rightwinger

How LBJ Saved the Civil Rights Act

Days after Kennedy’s murder, Johnson displayed the type of leadership on civil rights that his predecessor lacked and that the other branches could not possibly match. He made the bold and exceedingly risky decision to champion the stalled civil-rights bill. It was a pivotal moment: without Johnson, a strong bill would not have passed. Caro writes that during a searching late-night conversation that lasted into the morning of November 27, when somebody tried to persuade Johnson not to waste his time or capital on the lost cause of civil rights, the president replied, “Well, what the hell’s the presidency for?” He grasped the unique possibilities of the moment and saw how to leverage the nation’s grief by tying Kennedy’s legacy to the fight against inequality. Addressing Congress later that day, Johnson showed that he would replace his predecessor’s eloquence with concrete action. He resolutely announced: “We have talked long enough in this country about equal rights. We have talked for 100 years or more. It is time now to write the next chapter, and to write it in the books of law.”


----------



## Coyote

*Folks...the topic is the 2nd Amendment and this thread is getting significantly derailed, let's adjust the course a bit please.*


----------



## ding

rightwinger said:


> How LBJ Saved the Civil Rights Act
> 
> Days after Kennedy’s murder, Johnson displayed the type of leadership on civil rights that his predecessor lacked and that the other branches could not possibly match. He made the bold and exceedingly risky decision to champion the stalled civil-rights bill. It was a pivotal moment: without Johnson, a strong bill would not have passed. Caro writes that during a searching late-night conversation that lasted into the morning of November 27, when somebody tried to persuade Johnson not to waste his time or capital on the lost cause of civil rights, the president replied, “Well, what the hell’s the presidency for?” He grasped the unique possibilities of the moment and saw how to leverage the nation’s grief by tying Kennedy’s legacy to the fight against inequality. Addressing Congress later that day, Johnson showed that he would replace his predecessor’s eloquence with concrete action. He resolutely announced: “We have talked long enough in this country about equal rights. We have talked for 100 years or more. It is time now to write the next chapter, and to write it in the books of law.”


*President Lyndon Johnson Was Not A Civil Rights Advocate*
Democrats (like yourself)  ignore the pivotal role played by Senator Dirksen in obtaining passage of the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act, while heralding President Johnson as a civil rights advocate for signing the bill. 

Notably, in his 4,500-word State of the Union Address delivered on January 4, 1965, Johnson mentioned scores of topics for federal action, but only thirty five words were devoted to civil rights. He did not mention one word about voting rights. Information about Johnson’s anemic civil rights policy positions can be found in the “Public Papers of the President, Lyndon B. Johnson,” 1965, vol.1, p.1-9.

In their campaign to unfairly paint the Republican Party today as racists, Democrats point to President Johnson’s prediction that there would be an exodus from the Democratic Party because of Johnson’s signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Omitted from the Democrats’ rewritten history is what Johnson actually meant by his prediction. Johnson’s statement was not made out of a concern that racist Democrats would suddenly join the Republican Party that was fighting for the civil rights of blacks. Instead, Johnson feared that the racist Democrats would again form a third party, such as the short lived States Rights Democratic Party. In fact, Alabama’s Democrat Governor George C. Wallace in 1968 started the American Independent Party that attracted other racist candidates, including Democrat Atlanta Mayor (later Governor of Georgia) Lester Maddox.


----------



## ding

Coyote said:


> *Folks...the topic is the 2nd Amendment and this thread is getting significantly derailed, let's adjust the course a bit please.*


Roger that.


----------



## ding

_Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it._


----------



## ding

The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.

_The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.

The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.
_
The 2nd Amendment prevents the government from interfering with our right to own and possess guns, especially guns that a modern day light infantry militia ought to possess.


----------



## rightwinger

ding said:


> _Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it._


Doesn't preclude regulations

Who must join the militia, how they are trained, what weapons they have, what the command structure is 

Knowing who has guns, the training they have and where they are is essential to a well regulated militia


----------



## ding

rightwinger said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it._
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't preclude regulations
> 
> Who must join the militia, how they are trained, what weapons they have, what the command structure is
> 
> Knowing who has guns, the training they have and where they are is essential to a well regulated militia
Click to expand...

No.

No.

And no.

Given that the point of the 2nd Amendment is to serve as a check against a standing army of a tyrannical government, giving the government -. the ones we are supposed to be serving as a check against - the details of the militia would make as little sense as arming them with less than the technology of the day.


----------



## frigidweirdo

ding said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, they were basically at war, surely the US tried to disarm anyone they were at war with.
> 
> Armed resistance got them what? A few concessions, that's saying that no one gets concessions unless they have guns? Rubbish.
> 
> Your argument is still as weak as water.
> 
> 
> 
> You mean YOU believe the founding fathers argument is weaker than water.  I disagree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I don't mean that at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well... It's not my argument I am making.  It is the Founding Father's argument I am re-stating.
> 
> The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.
> 
> "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> "I_f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
> 
> - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.
> 
> "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"
> 
> Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"
> 
> The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.
> 
> "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
> 
> "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
> 
> "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you're not repeating the Founders' arguments. The founders weren't a solid group who all thought the same, so that's impossible.
> 
> Firstly, I didn't say the 2A wasn't the last check on govt tyranny. So quoting all this stuff to show this doesn't do anything. You're not arguing against me. I don't know who you're arguing against, but it seems kind of pointless to tell me this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Given that I am using their own words, I'm going to have to disagree with you on that.  See?
> 
> The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.
> 
> "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> "I_f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
> 
> - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.
> 
> "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"
> 
> Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"
> 
> The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.
> 
> "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
> 
> "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
> 
> "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it._
Click to expand...


Are you really unable to understand what I say? This is getting ridiculous. You're not responding to what I'm writing. So, I'm going to say bye, and if you bother to actually read in the future, then I may be willing to respond to you. But I'm fed up with you just repeating the same things that have nothing to do with what I said over and over and over again.


----------



## ding

frigidweirdo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean YOU believe the founding fathers argument is weaker than water.  I disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't mean that at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well... It's not my argument I am making.  It is the Founding Father's argument I am re-stating.
> 
> The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.
> 
> "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> "I_f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
> 
> - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.
> 
> "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"
> 
> Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"
> 
> The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.
> 
> "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
> 
> "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
> 
> "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you're not repeating the Founders' arguments. The founders weren't a solid group who all thought the same, so that's impossible.
> 
> Firstly, I didn't say the 2A wasn't the last check on govt tyranny. So quoting all this stuff to show this doesn't do anything. You're not arguing against me. I don't know who you're arguing against, but it seems kind of pointless to tell me this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Given that I am using their own words, I'm going to have to disagree with you on that.  See?
> 
> The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.
> 
> "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> "I_f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
> 
> - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.
> 
> "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"
> 
> Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"
> 
> The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.
> 
> "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
> 
> "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
> 
> "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you really unable to understand what I say? This is getting ridiculous. You're not responding to what I'm writing. So, I'm going to say bye, and if you bother to actually read in the future, then I may be willing to respond to you. But I'm fed up with you just repeating the same things that have nothing to do with what I said over and over and over again.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should try to be more clear.  What is it that you are trying to say?


----------



## rightwinger

ding said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it._
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't preclude regulations
> 
> Who must join the militia, how they are trained, what weapons they have, what the command structure is
> 
> Knowing who has guns, the training they have and where they are is essential to a well regulated militia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.
> 
> No.
> 
> And no.
> 
> Given that the point of the 2nd Amendment is to serve as a check against a standing army of a tyrannical government, giving the government -. the ones we are supposed to be serving as a check against - the details of the militia would make as little sense as arming them with less than the technology of the day.
Click to expand...

There is nothing in the Constitution about militias being a check on the government 

They look at militias as being necessary for the security of a free state......not a check on a free state


----------



## frigidweirdo

ding said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't mean that at all.
> 
> 
> 
> Well... It's not my argument I am making.  It is the Founding Father's argument I am re-stating.
> 
> The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.
> 
> "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> "I_f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
> 
> - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.
> 
> "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"
> 
> Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"
> 
> The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.
> 
> "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
> 
> "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
> 
> "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you're not repeating the Founders' arguments. The founders weren't a solid group who all thought the same, so that's impossible.
> 
> Firstly, I didn't say the 2A wasn't the last check on govt tyranny. So quoting all this stuff to show this doesn't do anything. You're not arguing against me. I don't know who you're arguing against, but it seems kind of pointless to tell me this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Given that I am using their own words, I'm going to have to disagree with you on that.  See?
> 
> The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.
> 
> "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> "I_f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
> 
> - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.
> 
> "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"
> 
> Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"
> 
> The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.
> 
> "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
> 
> "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
> 
> "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you really unable to understand what I say? This is getting ridiculous. You're not responding to what I'm writing. So, I'm going to say bye, and if you bother to actually read in the future, then I may be willing to respond to you. But I'm fed up with you just repeating the same things that have nothing to do with what I said over and over and over again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe you should try to be more clear.  What is it that you are trying to say?
Click to expand...


How can I be more clear? I can't be more clear. At some point you realize the person on the other side just isn't paying attention.


----------



## ding

rightwinger said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it._
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't preclude regulations
> 
> Who must join the militia, how they are trained, what weapons they have, what the command structure is
> 
> Knowing who has guns, the training they have and where they are is essential to a well regulated militia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.
> 
> No.
> 
> And no.
> 
> Given that the point of the 2nd Amendment is to serve as a check against a standing army of a tyrannical government, giving the government -. the ones we are supposed to be serving as a check against - the details of the militia would make as little sense as arming them with less than the technology of the day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is nothing in the Constitution about militias being a check on the government
> 
> They look at militias as being necessary for the security of a free state......not a check on a free state
Click to expand...

Now you are splitting hairs.  Same difference. Which is why we look at the statements that were made by the Founding Fathers.  But hey, I'm not trying to convince you.  You won't be happy until all guns are banned and confiscated.


----------



## ding

frigidweirdo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well... It's not my argument I am making.  It is the Founding Father's argument I am re-stating.
> 
> The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.
> 
> "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> "I_f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
> 
> - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.
> 
> "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"
> 
> Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"
> 
> The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.
> 
> "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
> 
> "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
> 
> "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you're not repeating the Founders' arguments. The founders weren't a solid group who all thought the same, so that's impossible.
> 
> Firstly, I didn't say the 2A wasn't the last check on govt tyranny. So quoting all this stuff to show this doesn't do anything. You're not arguing against me. I don't know who you're arguing against, but it seems kind of pointless to tell me this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Given that I am using their own words, I'm going to have to disagree with you on that.  See?
> 
> The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.
> 
> "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> "I_f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
> 
> - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.
> 
> "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"
> 
> Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"
> 
> The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.
> 
> "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
> 
> "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
> 
> "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you really unable to understand what I say? This is getting ridiculous. You're not responding to what I'm writing. So, I'm going to say bye, and if you bother to actually read in the future, then I may be willing to respond to you. But I'm fed up with you just repeating the same things that have nothing to do with what I said over and over and over again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe you should try to be more clear.  What is it that you are trying to say?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can I be more clear? I can't be more clear. At some point you realize the person on the other side just isn't paying attention.
Click to expand...

I think you should try again.  But this time say it differently.  Or don't.  I really don't care.  You can walk away with a huffy breath for all I care.  Your call.


----------



## frigidweirdo

ding said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you're not repeating the Founders' arguments. The founders weren't a solid group who all thought the same, so that's impossible.
> 
> Firstly, I didn't say the 2A wasn't the last check on govt tyranny. So quoting all this stuff to show this doesn't do anything. You're not arguing against me. I don't know who you're arguing against, but it seems kind of pointless to tell me this.
> 
> 
> 
> Given that I am using their own words, I'm going to have to disagree with you on that.  See?
> 
> The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.
> 
> "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> "I_f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
> 
> - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.
> 
> "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"
> 
> Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"
> 
> The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.
> 
> "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
> 
> "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
> 
> "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you really unable to understand what I say? This is getting ridiculous. You're not responding to what I'm writing. So, I'm going to say bye, and if you bother to actually read in the future, then I may be willing to respond to you. But I'm fed up with you just repeating the same things that have nothing to do with what I said over and over and over again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe you should try to be more clear.  What is it that you are trying to say?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can I be more clear? I can't be more clear. At some point you realize the person on the other side just isn't paying attention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you should try again.  But this time say it differently.  Or don't.  I really don't care.  You can walk away with a huffy breath for all I care.  Your call.
Click to expand...


Dude, I've tried like 10 times and EVERY TIME you come back at me with something that has NOTHING to do with what I'm talking about. The first post I replied to was nonsense, you said the right to bear arms was the right to own weapons, it's not. From there on it's been a case of you replying to some imaginary ghost, because you're not reading what I'm writing. 

You can try and pretend this is all my fault to try and save face is you want, but dude, READ WHAT THE FUCK PEOPLE WRITE and RESPOND TO WHAT THEY WRITE.


----------



## ding

frigidweirdo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given that I am using their own words, I'm going to have to disagree with you on that.  See?
> 
> The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.
> 
> "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> "I_f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
> 
> - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.
> 
> "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"
> 
> Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"
> 
> The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.
> 
> "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
> 
> "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
> 
> "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really unable to understand what I say? This is getting ridiculous. You're not responding to what I'm writing. So, I'm going to say bye, and if you bother to actually read in the future, then I may be willing to respond to you. But I'm fed up with you just repeating the same things that have nothing to do with what I said over and over and over again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe you should try to be more clear.  What is it that you are trying to say?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can I be more clear? I can't be more clear. At some point you realize the person on the other side just isn't paying attention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you should try again.  But this time say it differently.  Or don't.  I really don't care.  You can walk away with a huffy breath for all I care.  Your call.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, I've tried like 10 times and EVERY TIME you come back at me with something that has NOTHING to do with what I'm talking about. The first post I replied to was nonsense, you said the right to bear arms was the right to own weapons, it's not. From there on it's been a case of you replying to some imaginary ghost, because you're not reading what I'm writing.
> 
> You can try and pretend this is all my fault to try and save face is you want, but dude, READ WHAT THE FUCK PEOPLE WRITE and RESPOND TO WHAT THEY WRITE.
Click to expand...

I answered the question I thought you asked.  Obviously there has been a communication breakdown.  At what point are you going to realize that I can't answer the question you want me to answer until you either ask it differently or provide more information to me?  Or you could just keep ranting about how I should be able to answer the question and we can be stuck in this do loop.


----------



## Tennyson

rightwinger said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it._
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't preclude regulations
> 
> Who must join the militia, how they are trained, what weapons they have, what the command structure is
> 
> Knowing who has guns, the training they have and where they are is essential to a well regulated militia
Click to expand...


It does preclude regulation if the indefinite articles of Article I, Section 8 and the Second Amendment are used.


----------



## frigidweirdo

ding said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really unable to understand what I say? This is getting ridiculous. You're not responding to what I'm writing. So, I'm going to say bye, and if you bother to actually read in the future, then I may be willing to respond to you. But I'm fed up with you just repeating the same things that have nothing to do with what I said over and over and over again.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should try to be more clear.  What is it that you are trying to say?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can I be more clear? I can't be more clear. At some point you realize the person on the other side just isn't paying attention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you should try again.  But this time say it differently.  Or don't.  I really don't care.  You can walk away with a huffy breath for all I care.  Your call.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, I've tried like 10 times and EVERY TIME you come back at me with something that has NOTHING to do with what I'm talking about. The first post I replied to was nonsense, you said the right to bear arms was the right to own weapons, it's not. From there on it's been a case of you replying to some imaginary ghost, because you're not reading what I'm writing.
> 
> You can try and pretend this is all my fault to try and save face is you want, but dude, READ WHAT THE FUCK PEOPLE WRITE and RESPOND TO WHAT THEY WRITE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I answered the question I thought you asked.  Obviously there has been a communication breakdown.  At what point are you going to realize that I can't answer the question you want me to answer until you either ask it differently or provide more information to me?  Or you could just keep ranting about how I should be able to answer the question and we can be stuck in this do loop.
Click to expand...


Yes, clearly a communication breakdown. I write "red" you read "yellow". That is a fucking communication breakdown. 

Take a look at the first post I replied to in this session.

I said:

"Firstly, I didn't say the 2A wasn't the last check on govt tyranny."

You said:

"The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace."

Why would you A) repeat what you wrote in a previous post and B) repeat it when I said quite clearly that I have never said it wasn't?

You want to say there's a communication breakdown. Clearly, if you're going to keep repeating things that I basically said, then throwing quotes out there to back up what you just said when NO ONE is contesting what you said in the slightest. Why would you do that? There's no point in doing this. 


Here's our conversation from a different perspective.

Me: Dogs like to fetch sticks.
You: Well, I think you're wrong, cats like to sleep on the sofa. Here are twenty pictures of cats sleeping on the sofa. 
Me: I didn't say cats don't like sleeping on the sofa, we're talking about dogs chasing sticks.
You: Well I think you're wrong, cats like to sleep on the sofa. Here are twenty five pictures of cats sleeping on the sofa.
Me: Why do you keep saying this?
You: I think there's a breakdown in communication somewhere.


----------



## ding

Tennyson said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it._
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't preclude regulations
> 
> Who must join the militia, how they are trained, what weapons they have, what the command structure is
> 
> Knowing who has guns, the training they have and where they are is essential to a well regulated militia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It does preclude regulation if the indefinite articles of Article I, Section 8 and the Second Amendment are used.
Click to expand...

In laymen's terms please.


----------



## ding

frigidweirdo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should try to be more clear.  What is it that you are trying to say?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can I be more clear? I can't be more clear. At some point you realize the person on the other side just isn't paying attention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you should try again.  But this time say it differently.  Or don't.  I really don't care.  You can walk away with a huffy breath for all I care.  Your call.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, I've tried like 10 times and EVERY TIME you come back at me with something that has NOTHING to do with what I'm talking about. The first post I replied to was nonsense, you said the right to bear arms was the right to own weapons, it's not. From there on it's been a case of you replying to some imaginary ghost, because you're not reading what I'm writing.
> 
> You can try and pretend this is all my fault to try and save face is you want, but dude, READ WHAT THE FUCK PEOPLE WRITE and RESPOND TO WHAT THEY WRITE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I answered the question I thought you asked.  Obviously there has been a communication breakdown.  At what point are you going to realize that I can't answer the question you want me to answer until you either ask it differently or provide more information to me?  Or you could just keep ranting about how I should be able to answer the question and we can be stuck in this do loop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, clearly a communication breakdown. I write "red" you read "yellow". That is a fucking communication breakdown.
> 
> Take a look at the first post I replied to in this session.
> 
> I said:
> 
> "Firstly, I didn't say the 2A wasn't the last check on govt tyranny."
> 
> You said:
> 
> "The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace."
> 
> Why would you A) repeat what you wrote in a previous post and B) repeat it when I said quite clearly that I have never said it wasn't?
> 
> You want to say there's a communication breakdown. Clearly, if you're going to keep repeating things that I basically said, then throwing quotes out there to back up what you just said when NO ONE is contesting what you said in the slightest. Why would you do that? There's no point in doing this.
> 
> 
> Here's our conversation from a different perspective.
> 
> Me: Dogs like to fetch sticks.
> You: Well, I think you're wrong, cats like to sleep on the sofa. Here are twenty pictures of cats sleeping on the sofa.
> Me: I didn't say cats don't like sleeping on the sofa, we're talking about dogs chasing sticks.
> You: Well I think you're wrong, cats like to sleep on the sofa. Here are twenty five pictures of cats sleeping on the sofa.
> Me: Why do you keep saying this?
> You: I think there's a breakdown in communication somewhere.
Click to expand...

Wow.  That really cleared it up.  What's your question?


----------



## Tennyson

ding said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it._
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't preclude regulations
> 
> Who must join the militia, how they are trained, what weapons they have, what the command structure is
> 
> Knowing who has guns, the training they have and where they are is essential to a well regulated militia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It does preclude regulation if the indefinite articles of Article I, Section 8 and the Second Amendment are used.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In laymen's terms please.
Click to expand...


The short version.
Compare the indefinite articles between the military clauses of Article I and the Second Amendment of “a” and “the.” “A” is used properly when introducing something for the first time. Notice the first use of “a”: To provide and maintain a navy; Then it move on to “the” as it has been introduced. And the “the” in “To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions…” This is not the militia of the Second Amendment.

On to the Second Amendment: “A well regulated Militia” uses the indefinite article ‘a.” This is because this was the first mention of a militia of the people of the states and the term “Well-regulated is a modifier for “militia,” which are the people not the militia of Article I. This was proper grammar and it was consistent with the rest of the Constitution.


----------



## frigidweirdo

ding said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can I be more clear? I can't be more clear. At some point you realize the person on the other side just isn't paying attention.
> 
> 
> 
> I think you should try again.  But this time say it differently.  Or don't.  I really don't care.  You can walk away with a huffy breath for all I care.  Your call.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, I've tried like 10 times and EVERY TIME you come back at me with something that has NOTHING to do with what I'm talking about. The first post I replied to was nonsense, you said the right to bear arms was the right to own weapons, it's not. From there on it's been a case of you replying to some imaginary ghost, because you're not reading what I'm writing.
> 
> You can try and pretend this is all my fault to try and save face is you want, but dude, READ WHAT THE FUCK PEOPLE WRITE and RESPOND TO WHAT THEY WRITE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I answered the question I thought you asked.  Obviously there has been a communication breakdown.  At what point are you going to realize that I can't answer the question you want me to answer until you either ask it differently or provide more information to me?  Or you could just keep ranting about how I should be able to answer the question and we can be stuck in this do loop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, clearly a communication breakdown. I write "red" you read "yellow". That is a fucking communication breakdown.
> 
> Take a look at the first post I replied to in this session.
> 
> I said:
> 
> "Firstly, I didn't say the 2A wasn't the last check on govt tyranny."
> 
> You said:
> 
> "The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace."
> 
> Why would you A) repeat what you wrote in a previous post and B) repeat it when I said quite clearly that I have never said it wasn't?
> 
> You want to say there's a communication breakdown. Clearly, if you're going to keep repeating things that I basically said, then throwing quotes out there to back up what you just said when NO ONE is contesting what you said in the slightest. Why would you do that? There's no point in doing this.
> 
> 
> Here's our conversation from a different perspective.
> 
> Me: Dogs like to fetch sticks.
> You: Well, I think you're wrong, cats like to sleep on the sofa. Here are twenty pictures of cats sleeping on the sofa.
> Me: I didn't say cats don't like sleeping on the sofa, we're talking about dogs chasing sticks.
> You: Well I think you're wrong, cats like to sleep on the sofa. Here are twenty five pictures of cats sleeping on the sofa.
> Me: Why do you keep saying this?
> You: I think there's a breakdown in communication somewhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow.  That really cleared it up.  What's your question?
Click to expand...


And again, why do you think there's a question? Did you not read what I wrote?


----------



## Spare_change

Tennyson said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nowhere in the history, text, or case law of the Second Amendment will one find any reference to the Second Amendment 'trumping' the First Amendment, or authorizing the Second Amendment to abridge the First Amendment right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances through either the political process or the judicial process.
> 
> That a minority of citizens might subjectively and in error perceive government to have become 'tyrannical' in no manner 'justifies' that minority to 'take up arms' against a government lawfully sanctioned by a majority of the people, where government is indeed functioning in accordance with the Constitution and its case law.
> 
> There must first be consensus and agreement among the people through the political and democratic process as to what constitutes actual 'tyranny,' and that, consistent with that consensus, the government is in fact 'tyrannical' - then and only then might 'taking up arms' be warranted and lawful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> British, perhaps??
> 
> Because that is EXACTLY what happened 250 years ago --- _*"minority of citizens might subjectively and in error perceive government to have become 'tyrannical' in no manner 'justifies' that minority to 'take up arms' against a government lawfully sanctioned by a majority of the people"
> *_
> There does NOT have to be "consensus" ... you only have to choose a side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This fails as a false comparison fallacy.
> 
> The Revolutionary War concerned a foreign government acting outside of the rule of law without the consent of the people, as opposed to today where the Federal government is acting with the consent of the people, consistent with the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law.
> 
> And consensus is in fact needed.
> 
> There must be agreement as to the criteria and conditions that render a government ‘tyrannical,’ not the subjective beliefs and perceptions of a frightened, reactionary minority.
> 
> The people have the First Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances through the political process and then the judicial process; that right cannot be abridged or superseded by the Second Amendment.
> 
> Last, the issue has nothing to do with ‘taking sides,’ whatever that’s supposed to mean.
> 
> The mistake you make is to incorrectly perceive ‘the government’ as some sort of entity separate and apart from the people, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.
> 
> In fact, the government and the people are one in the same: the government is the creation of the people, the government is acting at the behest of the people, reflecting the will of the people, consistent with our Republican form of government and the rule of law.
> 
> To seek to oppose the government of the people, created by the people, absent a just and legitimate cause, predicated solely on partisan, ideological opposition to the government, is to oppose the people, the Constitution, and the rule of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Revolutionary War did not concern “a foreign government acting outside of the rule of law without the consent of the people.” Britain was not a foreign government. The British government and the American colonies were one and the same. The colonies had British government on site governing the colonies. The consent of the people did not exist to be violated. The situation that caused the Revolutionary War was the same situation that had caused empires and nations to collapse throughout recorded history and is the same situation between the states and the federal government today. The federal government is not operating under the consent of the people, or our country would not be so bitterly divided today. If the government was operating under the consent of the people, then the Supreme Court would be nationally elected due to their self-imposed power over the states and the people.
> 
> The government is operating as a separate entity. That is why this country is divided beyond repair today.
> 
> The government is not the people, and that is the problem. The people did not create a Supreme Court with power over the states or people, and the people did not create the executive branch’s cabinet of entities that make and create laws that affect the people in the stead or the House. The rule of law precludes executive orders that create law, cabinet entities that create and enforce laws, Supreme Court jurisdiction over states or people, etc. That is not the rule of law; that is the rule of man.
Click to expand...



What an amazing, and amusing, perversion of reality.


----------



## ding

frigidweirdo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you should try again.  But this time say it differently.  Or don't.  I really don't care.  You can walk away with a huffy breath for all I care.  Your call.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, I've tried like 10 times and EVERY TIME you come back at me with something that has NOTHING to do with what I'm talking about. The first post I replied to was nonsense, you said the right to bear arms was the right to own weapons, it's not. From there on it's been a case of you replying to some imaginary ghost, because you're not reading what I'm writing.
> 
> You can try and pretend this is all my fault to try and save face is you want, but dude, READ WHAT THE FUCK PEOPLE WRITE and RESPOND TO WHAT THEY WRITE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I answered the question I thought you asked.  Obviously there has been a communication breakdown.  At what point are you going to realize that I can't answer the question you want me to answer until you either ask it differently or provide more information to me?  Or you could just keep ranting about how I should be able to answer the question and we can be stuck in this do loop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, clearly a communication breakdown. I write "red" you read "yellow". That is a fucking communication breakdown.
> 
> Take a look at the first post I replied to in this session.
> 
> I said:
> 
> "Firstly, I didn't say the 2A wasn't the last check on govt tyranny."
> 
> You said:
> 
> "The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace."
> 
> Why would you A) repeat what you wrote in a previous post and B) repeat it when I said quite clearly that I have never said it wasn't?
> 
> You want to say there's a communication breakdown. Clearly, if you're going to keep repeating things that I basically said, then throwing quotes out there to back up what you just said when NO ONE is contesting what you said in the slightest. Why would you do that? There's no point in doing this.
> 
> 
> Here's our conversation from a different perspective.
> 
> Me: Dogs like to fetch sticks.
> You: Well, I think you're wrong, cats like to sleep on the sofa. Here are twenty pictures of cats sleeping on the sofa.
> Me: I didn't say cats don't like sleeping on the sofa, we're talking about dogs chasing sticks.
> You: Well I think you're wrong, cats like to sleep on the sofa. Here are twenty five pictures of cats sleeping on the sofa.
> Me: Why do you keep saying this?
> You: I think there's a breakdown in communication somewhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow.  That really cleared it up.  What's your question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And again, why do you think there's a question? Did you not read what I wrote?
Click to expand...

Cool then. We're done.  There is nothing to respond to.


----------



## ding

The Founding Father's contention that an armed populace is the best defense against a standing army is not weaker than water.  It is the basis for the 2nd Amendment.

The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"I_f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." 

- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"

Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it._


----------



## ding

Tennyson said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it._
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't preclude regulations
> 
> Who must join the militia, how they are trained, what weapons they have, what the command structure is
> 
> Knowing who has guns, the training they have and where they are is essential to a well regulated militia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It does preclude regulation if the indefinite articles of Article I, Section 8 and the Second Amendment are used.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In laymen's terms please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The short version.
> Compare the indefinite articles between the military clauses of Article I and the Second Amendment of “a” and “the.” “A” is used properly when introducing something for the first time. Notice the first use of “a”: To provide and maintain a navy; Then it move on to “the” as it has been introduced. And the “the” in “To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions…” This is not the militia of the Second Amendment.
> 
> On to the Second Amendment: “A well regulated Militia” uses the indefinite article ‘a.” This is because this was the first mention of a militia of the people of the states and the term “Well-regulated is a modifier for “militia,” which are the people not the militia of Article I. This was proper grammar and it was consistent with the rest of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I see a much easier explanation being the intent of the 2nd Amendment is to serve as a check against a standing army of a tyrannical government, so the militia and its arms must never be under the auspice of that government.  The same logic applies to the type of weaponry they should possess.  In this case, semi-automatic rifles with high capacity magazines.


----------



## frigidweirdo

ding said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it._
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't preclude regulations
> 
> Who must join the militia, how they are trained, what weapons they have, what the command structure is
> 
> Knowing who has guns, the training they have and where they are is essential to a well regulated militia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It does preclude regulation if the indefinite articles of Article I, Section 8 and the Second Amendment are used.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In laymen's terms please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The short version.
> Compare the indefinite articles between the military clauses of Article I and the Second Amendment of “a” and “the.” “A” is used properly when introducing something for the first time. Notice the first use of “a”: To provide and maintain a navy; Then it move on to “the” as it has been introduced. And the “the” in “To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions…” This is not the militia of the Second Amendment.
> 
> On to the Second Amendment: “A well regulated Militia” uses the indefinite article ‘a.” This is because this was the first mention of a militia of the people of the states and the term “Well-regulated is a modifier for “militia,” which are the people not the militia of Article I. This was proper grammar and it was consistent with the rest of the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, I see a much easier explanation being the intent of the 2nd Amendment is to serve as a check against a standing army of a tyrannical government, so the militia and its arms must never be under the auspice of that government.  The same logic applies to the type of weaponry they should possess.  In this case, semi-automatic rifles with high capacity magazines.
Click to expand...


Why not tanks, fighter jets, nuclear weapons etc? They're also needed.

If your "logic" and argument is that any weapon the militia uses is therefore available to the general populace then all individuals would therefore have the right to own this weaponry. Would you feel safe flying knowing SAM missiles were readily available in your local gun shop? 

The reality is that cannons were not protected for individuals in the 1700s even though they were considered militia equipment. So, the right to keep arms has never extended to the right to own any weapon the Militia might use. 

In the US v. Miller Supreme Court case the Court said: 

"The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon."

So, the Supreme Court has ruled, and upheld, even in the Heller case (written by a right wing justice) that a weapon has to have a reason relationship to the preservation of the efficiency of a well regulated militia.

This does not mean the owner of the weapon has to be in the militia. It does not mean the weapon has to be used by the militia. However the militia would have to basically say this kind of weaponry would be expected to be brought when a person is called up into the militia. 

Right now no one ever gets called up to the militia. In fact more people who are in the militia don't do anything, and hardly even know they're in the militia.

You're clutching at straws.


----------



## ding

frigidweirdo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't preclude regulations
> 
> Who must join the militia, how they are trained, what weapons they have, what the command structure is
> 
> Knowing who has guns, the training they have and where they are is essential to a well regulated militia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It does preclude regulation if the indefinite articles of Article I, Section 8 and the Second Amendment are used.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In laymen's terms please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The short version.
> Compare the indefinite articles between the military clauses of Article I and the Second Amendment of “a” and “the.” “A” is used properly when introducing something for the first time. Notice the first use of “a”: To provide and maintain a navy; Then it move on to “the” as it has been introduced. And the “the” in “To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions…” This is not the militia of the Second Amendment.
> 
> On to the Second Amendment: “A well regulated Militia” uses the indefinite article ‘a.” This is because this was the first mention of a militia of the people of the states and the term “Well-regulated is a modifier for “militia,” which are the people not the militia of Article I. This was proper grammar and it was consistent with the rest of the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, I see a much easier explanation being the intent of the 2nd Amendment is to serve as a check against a standing army of a tyrannical government, so the militia and its arms must never be under the auspice of that government.  The same logic applies to the type of weaponry they should possess.  In this case, semi-automatic rifles with high capacity magazines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why not tanks, fighter jets, nuclear weapons etc? They're also needed.
> 
> If your "logic" and argument is that any weapon the militia uses is therefore available to the general populace then all individuals would therefore have the right to own this weaponry. Would you feel safe flying knowing SAM missiles were readily available in your local gun shop?
> 
> The reality is that cannons were not protected for individuals in the 1700s even though they were considered militia equipment. So, the right to keep arms has never extended to the right to own any weapon the Militia might use.
> 
> In the US v. Miller Supreme Court case the Court said:
> 
> "The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon."
> 
> So, the Supreme Court has ruled, and upheld, even in the Heller case (written by a right wing justice) that a weapon has to have a reason relationship to the preservation of the efficiency of a well regulated militia.
> 
> This does not mean the owner of the weapon has to be in the militia. It does not mean the weapon has to be used by the militia. However the militia would have to basically say this kind of weaponry would be expected to be brought when a person is called up into the militia.
> 
> Right now no one ever gets called up to the militia. In fact more people who are in the militia don't do anything, and hardly even know they're in the militia.
> 
> You're clutching at straws.
Click to expand...

Maybe that is YOUR logic. but that is not my logic.  My logic says semi-automatic rifles with high capacity.  I don't know anyone who is making the argument for tanks, fighter jets, nuclear weapons etc, except maybe you. 

I don't know why anyone would even want a shotgun barrel of less than 18".  That isn't effective at all.  But a semi-automatic rifle with a high capacity magazine is an effective arm for a light infantry militia.

No one gets called up to the militia because the militia is not intended to be under the auspice of the federal government.  The militia is intended to be the whole body of people who are capable and willing to come to arms if the need should arise.  The whole body of the people should _always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them._


----------



## ding

The only people who are clutching at straws are the ones who do not want peaceable law abiding citizens to own, possess, keep and bear arms.


----------



## frigidweirdo

ding said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> 
> It does preclude regulation if the indefinite articles of Article I, Section 8 and the Second Amendment are used.
> 
> 
> 
> In laymen's terms please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The short version.
> Compare the indefinite articles between the military clauses of Article I and the Second Amendment of “a” and “the.” “A” is used properly when introducing something for the first time. Notice the first use of “a”: To provide and maintain a navy; Then it move on to “the” as it has been introduced. And the “the” in “To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions…” This is not the militia of the Second Amendment.
> 
> On to the Second Amendment: “A well regulated Militia” uses the indefinite article ‘a.” This is because this was the first mention of a militia of the people of the states and the term “Well-regulated is a modifier for “militia,” which are the people not the militia of Article I. This was proper grammar and it was consistent with the rest of the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, I see a much easier explanation being the intent of the 2nd Amendment is to serve as a check against a standing army of a tyrannical government, so the militia and its arms must never be under the auspice of that government.  The same logic applies to the type of weaponry they should possess.  In this case, semi-automatic rifles with high capacity magazines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why not tanks, fighter jets, nuclear weapons etc? They're also needed.
> 
> If your "logic" and argument is that any weapon the militia uses is therefore available to the general populace then all individuals would therefore have the right to own this weaponry. Would you feel safe flying knowing SAM missiles were readily available in your local gun shop?
> 
> The reality is that cannons were not protected for individuals in the 1700s even though they were considered militia equipment. So, the right to keep arms has never extended to the right to own any weapon the Militia might use.
> 
> In the US v. Miller Supreme Court case the Court said:
> 
> "The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon."
> 
> So, the Supreme Court has ruled, and upheld, even in the Heller case (written by a right wing justice) that a weapon has to have a reason relationship to the preservation of the efficiency of a well regulated militia.
> 
> This does not mean the owner of the weapon has to be in the militia. It does not mean the weapon has to be used by the militia. However the militia would have to basically say this kind of weaponry would be expected to be brought when a person is called up into the militia.
> 
> Right now no one ever gets called up to the militia. In fact more people who are in the militia don't do anything, and hardly even know they're in the militia.
> 
> You're clutching at straws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe that is YOUR logic. but that is not my logic.  My logic says semi-automatic rifles with high capacity.  I don't know anyone who is making the argument for tanks, fighter jets, nuclear weapons etc, except maybe you.
> 
> I don't know why anyone would even want a shotgun barrel of less than 18".  That isn't effective at all.  But a semi-automatic rifle with a high capacity magazine is an effective arm for a light infantry militia.
> 
> No one gets called up to the militia because the militia is not intended to be under the auspice of the federal government.  The militia is intended to be the whole body of people who are capable and willing to come to arms if the need should arise.
Click to expand...


Unfortunately logic is logic, you can't have your own little personalized logic. 

No, you don't know anyone making arguments for tanks, except for yourself. Your argument is this: "so the militia and its arms must never be under the auspice of that government. The same logic applies to the type of weaponry they should possess."

That all weaponry the militia has should not be under govt control. I'm going to assume right now that you mean the federal govt, this is an important point, but let me know if I'm wrong under your "logic". 

So you're saying the people should be able to have militia weaponry, then I say tanks are militia weaponry then all of a sudden you're not saying people should have militia weaponry.

So, should people be able to have militia weaponry at home, or should they not?


----------



## Skull Pilot

Vandalshandle said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah because ALL people who own guns do that
> 
> I don't know why it's so hard for you to understand that simply because a person owns a gun he is not responsible for all crimes other people commit with a gun
> 
> I suppose you think because all men have penises that all men are responsible for every rape too
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you fail to understand that every person who ever killed someone with a gun was once an innocent man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SO what?
> 
> You can't punish people for crimes they have not yet committed.  And you can't punish an innocent person for the crimes of another
> 
> But tell you what you volunteer to be castrated because all rapists were once innocent men, give up your driver's license because all drunk drivers were once sober drivers, spend the rest of your life in prison because all criminals were once not criminals at least that way you'l be consistent with your beliefs that all people need to be treated like criminals for future crimes they may or may not commit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not unreasonable to make it illegal for someone to sell a gun without a background check, and it is not unreasonable for a person who knowingly sells a gun to a person who would not pass a background check, to be charged with accessory, if the person that he sold it to commits homicide with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice change of subject
> I never said anything about not having background checks did I?
> And it already is illegal to knowingly sell a gun to anyone who is legally ineligible to own one
> 
> But for anyone who passes background checks as I have multiple times there is no valid reason to tell me I can't own a specific semiautomatic rifle or a magazine with more than a 10 round capacity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not against the law for you to sell your gun to a stranger with no questions asked, unless you are a licensed dealer.
> 
> Since I am a sheriff Aucillary Volunteer, and patrol in uniform in a police car, that puts me squarely on the side of the law. You have clearly stated that it is unreasonable to demand that an individual do a background check on a gun buyer, which only benefits convicted felons, and others that are not able to buy from a licensed dealer. That puts you squarely on the side of the criminal. That being the case, I have no use for further discussion with you, just like I have no need for philosophical discussions with criminals.
Click to expand...

it depends on the state
in my state it is illegal to knowingly sell any weapon to anyone ineligible

So now Asshole please quote the post where I "clearly stated that it is unreasonable" to perform background checks

Since I know you cannot produce that quote I have no use for lying fuckwads like you


----------



## Skull Pilot

Vandalshandle said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah because ALL people who own guns do that
> 
> I don't know why it's so hard for you to understand that simply because a person owns a gun he is not responsible for all crimes other people commit with a gun
> 
> I suppose you think because all men have penises that all men are responsible for every rape too
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you fail to understand that every person who ever killed someone with a gun was once an innocent man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SO what?
> 
> You can't punish people for crimes they have not yet committed.  And you can't punish an innocent person for the crimes of another
> 
> But tell you what you volunteer to be castrated because all rapists were once innocent men, give up your driver's license because all drunk drivers were once sober drivers, spend the rest of your life in prison because all criminals were once not criminals at least that way you'l be consistent with your beliefs that all people need to be treated like criminals for future crimes they may or may not commit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure you can....even if you think preventing access to weapons is "punishment"
> 
> Should someone convicted of beating his wife be allowed to trot down to the local gun shop after having a fight?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is illegal for anyone with a domestic violence conviction to buy a gun
> You might want to learn the existing laws before you say we need more.
> 
> And restricting my behavior even though I have committed no crime is punishment
> tell you what why don't you ground your kids and don't let them out of the house until they are 18 because they might break your house rules in the future
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But, it is NOT illegal from you to sell him a gun. Be aware that those of us on the side of civilization believe that you are guilty of accessory to felony homicide if we can prove you knowingly sold to someone who killed someone with it, and by requiring you to do a background check, we would be able to prove it.
Click to expand...


A background check will not prevent murder.  A person can pass a check and still commit murder.

and in many states it is illegal to sell to anyone ineligible by state law to own a firearm

Private Sales in Connecticut | Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence

Last updated October 19, 2016.


Connecticut prohibits any person, firm or corporation from selling, delivering or otherwise transferring a handgun to any person prohibited by state law from possessing a handgun.1 Handgun transfers may not be made until the person, firm or corporation making the transfer obtains an authorization number – following a background check on the prospective purchaser – from the Connecticut Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (DESPP).2 Moreover, the state prohibits any person, firm, or corporation from transferring a handgun unless the transferee has a permit to carry a handgun, a permit to sell handguns at retail, or a handgun eligibility certificate.3 See the Licensing of Gun Owners & Purchasers in Connecticut section.

Connecticut also prohibits the sale or transfer of a long gun by someone who is not a federally-licensed firearm dealer, manufacturer, or importer to someone who is not a similarly-licensed person, unless the following conditions are met:


The prospective transferor and transferee must comply with the documentation and authorization requirements that apply to retail sales of long guns (e.g., (a) the seller must document the transaction with DESPP, maintain copies of the record, and obtain an authorization number from DESPP; (b) the buyer must undergo a national instant criminal background check system (NICS) check; (c) the gun cannot be loaded when transferred; and (d) DESPP must authorize or deny the sale or transfer);4 or
Starting on January 1, 2014, a federally licensed firearm dealer, upon the request of the prospective transferor or transferee, must consent to initiate a NICS check in accordance with the procedures set forth below, and the background check must show that the transferee is eligible to receive the gun.5


----------



## ding

frigidweirdo said:


> Unfortunately logic is logic, you can't have your own little personalized logic.  No, you don't know anyone making arguments for tanks, except for yourself. Your argument is this: "so the militia and its arms must never be under the auspice of that government. The same logic applies to the type of weaponry they should possess."


In this case I can as you started off this line of thought by making an assumption that was not true.  It is not my argument that the 2nd Amendment grants us the right to own any weapon.  This is YOUR weak tea argument, not mine and it shows how desperate you are becoming to deny us the arms we need which are semi-automatic rifles with high capacity magazines.  




frigidweirdo said:


> That all weaponry the militia has should not be under govt control. I'm going to assume right now that you mean the federal govt, this is an important point, but let me know if I'm wrong under your "logic".


Yes.  You are wrong.  All government control.  Period.  Let's be realistic here, your end game is banning guns.  Let's not pretend you are trying to refine the finer points of the 2nd Amendment, ok?




frigidweirdo said:


> So you're saying the people should be able to have militia weaponry, then I say tanks are militia weaponry then all of a sudden you're not saying people should have militia weaponry.



I have been very clear about what I have said.  You are the one who is saying all manner of ridiculous things in a feeble attempt at constructing a straw-man of your own making.  Let's not pretend you are trying to refine the finer points of the 2nd Amendment, ok?  Your end game is banning guns.



frigidweirdo said:


> So, should people be able to have militia weaponry at home, or should they not?


My last statement was very clear.  The 2nd Amendment grants  peaceable law abiding citizens the right to own, possess, keep and bear arms.


----------



## rightwinger

ding said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it._
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't preclude regulations
> 
> Who must join the militia, how they are trained, what weapons they have, what the command structure is
> 
> Knowing who has guns, the training they have and where they are is essential to a well regulated militia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.
> 
> No.
> 
> And no.
> 
> Given that the point of the 2nd Amendment is to serve as a check against a standing army of a tyrannical government, giving the government -. the ones we are supposed to be serving as a check against - the details of the militia would make as little sense as arming them with less than the technology of the day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is nothing in the Constitution about militias being a check on the government
> 
> They look at militias as being necessary for the security of a free state......not a check on a free state
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you are splitting hairs.  Same difference. Which is why we look at the statements that were made by the Founding Fathers.  But hey, I'm not trying to convince you.  You won't be happy until all guns are banned and confiscated.
Click to expand...


There are no words in the Constitution relating to the rights of civilians to overthrow government.
I'm not looking to ban or confiscate all guns. With 300 million out there, that is not going to happen

But I do believe those who stockpile guns and ammo for the day when they will take on the US Government are certifiable crazy


----------



## Skull Pilot

rightwinger said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it._
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't preclude regulations
> 
> Who must join the militia, how they are trained, what weapons they have, what the command structure is
> 
> Knowing who has guns, the training they have and where they are is essential to a well regulated militia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.
> 
> No.
> 
> And no.
> 
> Given that the point of the 2nd Amendment is to serve as a check against a standing army of a tyrannical government, giving the government -. the ones we are supposed to be serving as a check against - the details of the militia would make as little sense as arming them with less than the technology of the day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is nothing in the Constitution about militias being a check on the government
> 
> They look at militias as being necessary for the security of a free state......not a check on a free state
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you are splitting hairs.  Same difference. Which is why we look at the statements that were made by the Founding Fathers.  But hey, I'm not trying to convince you.  You won't be happy until all guns are banned and confiscated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are no words in the Constitution relating to the rights of civilians to overthrow government.
> I'm not looking to ban or confiscate all guns. With 300 million out there, that is not going to happen
> 
> But I do believe those who stockpile guns and ammo for the day when they will take on the US Government are certifiable crazy
Click to expand...


And that's a very small percentage of gun owners


----------



## rightwinger

Skull Pilot said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't preclude regulations
> 
> Who must join the militia, how they are trained, what weapons they have, what the command structure is
> 
> Knowing who has guns, the training they have and where they are is essential to a well regulated militia
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> No.
> 
> And no.
> 
> Given that the point of the 2nd Amendment is to serve as a check against a standing army of a tyrannical government, giving the government -. the ones we are supposed to be serving as a check against - the details of the militia would make as little sense as arming them with less than the technology of the day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is nothing in the Constitution about militias being a check on the government
> 
> They look at militias as being necessary for the security of a free state......not a check on a free state
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you are splitting hairs.  Same difference. Which is why we look at the statements that were made by the Founding Fathers.  But hey, I'm not trying to convince you.  You won't be happy until all guns are banned and confiscated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are no words in the Constitution relating to the rights of civilians to overthrow government.
> I'm not looking to ban or confiscate all guns. With 300 million out there, that is not going to happen
> 
> But I do believe those who stockpile guns and ammo for the day when they will take on the US Government are certifiable crazy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that's a very small percentage of gun owners
Click to expand...


I give you ....Ding


----------



## frigidweirdo

ding said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately logic is logic, you can't have your own little personalized logic.  No, you don't know anyone making arguments for tanks, except for yourself. Your argument is this: "so the militia and its arms must never be under the auspice of that government. The same logic applies to the type of weaponry they should possess."
> 
> 
> 
> In this case I can as you started off this line of thought by making an assumption that was not true.  It is not my argument that the 2nd Amendment grants us the right to own any weapon.  This is YOUR weak tea argument, not mine and it shows how desperate you are becoming to deny us the arms we need which are semi-automatic rifles with high capacity magazines.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> That all weaponry the militia has should not be under govt control. I'm going to assume right now that you mean the federal govt, this is an important point, but let me know if I'm wrong under your "logic".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.  You are wrong.  All government control.  Period.  Let's be realistic here, your end game is banning guns.  Let's not pretend you are trying to refine the finer points of the 2nd Amendment, ok?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying the people should be able to have militia weaponry, then I say tanks are militia weaponry then all of a sudden you're not saying people should have militia weaponry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have been very clear about what I have said.  You are the one who is saying all manner of ridiculous things in a feeble attempt at constructing a straw-man of your own making.  Let's not pretend you are trying to refine the finer points of the 2nd Amendment, ok?  Your end game is banning guns.
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, should people be able to have militia weaponry at home, or should they not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My last statement was very clear.  The 2nd Amendment grants  peaceable law abiding citizens the right to own, possess, keep and bear arms.
Click to expand...


I should have just left it earlier on. You're back to talking complete bollocks again.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Skull Pilot said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you fail to understand that every person who ever killed someone with a gun was once an innocent man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SO what?
> 
> You can't punish people for crimes they have not yet committed.  And you can't punish an innocent person for the crimes of another
> 
> But tell you what you volunteer to be castrated because all rapists were once innocent men, give up your driver's license because all drunk drivers were once sober drivers, spend the rest of your life in prison because all criminals were once not criminals at least that way you'l be consistent with your beliefs that all people need to be treated like criminals for future crimes they may or may not commit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure you can....even if you think preventing access to weapons is "punishment"
> 
> Should someone convicted of beating his wife be allowed to trot down to the local gun shop after having a fight?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is illegal for anyone with a domestic violence conviction to buy a gun
> You might want to learn the existing laws before you say we need more.
> 
> And restricting my behavior even though I have committed no crime is punishment
> tell you what why don't you ground your kids and don't let them out of the house until they are 18 because they might break your house rules in the future
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But, it is NOT illegal from you to sell him a gun. Be aware that those of us on the side of civilization believe that you are guilty of accessory to felony homicide if we can prove you knowingly sold to someone who killed someone with it, and by requiring you to do a background check, we would be able to prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A background check will not prevent murder.  A person can pass a check and still commit murder.
> 
> and in many states it is illegal to sell to anyone ineligible by state law to own a firearm
> 
> Private Sales in Connecticut | Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence
> 
> Last updated October 19, 2016.
> 
> 
> Connecticut prohibits any person, firm or corporation from selling, delivering or otherwise transferring a handgun to any person prohibited by state law from possessing a handgun.1 Handgun transfers may not be made until the person, firm or corporation making the transfer obtains an authorization number – following a background check on the prospective purchaser – from the Connecticut Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (DESPP).2 Moreover, the state prohibits any person, firm, or corporation from transferring a handgun unless the transferee has a permit to carry a handgun, a permit to sell handguns at retail, or a handgun eligibility certificate.3 See the Licensing of Gun Owners & Purchasers in Connecticut section.
> 
> Connecticut also prohibits the sale or transfer of a long gun by someone who is not a federally-licensed firearm dealer, manufacturer, or importer to someone who is not a similarly-licensed person, unless the following conditions are met:
> 
> 
> The prospective transferor and transferee must comply with the documentation and authorization requirements that apply to retail sales of long guns (e.g., (a) the seller must document the transaction with DESPP, maintain copies of the record, and obtain an authorization number from DESPP; (b) the buyer must undergo a national instant criminal background check system (NICS) check; (c) the gun cannot be loaded when transferred; and (d) DESPP must authorize or deny the sale or transfer);4 or
> Starting on January 1, 2014, a federally licensed firearm dealer, upon the request of the prospective transferor or transferee, must consent to initiate a NICS check in accordance with the procedures set forth below, and the background check must show that the transferee is eligible to receive the gun.5
Click to expand...


I thought that you had no use for "lying fucks like (me)"

Looks like I will have to put you on ignore to stop your rants. No problem. I do it all the time when I come across befuddled dementia victims while on duty with the sheriff's Auxiliary in my retirement community.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Vandalshandle said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> SO what?
> 
> You can't punish people for crimes they have not yet committed.  And you can't punish an innocent person for the crimes of another
> 
> But tell you what you volunteer to be castrated because all rapists were once innocent men, give up your driver's license because all drunk drivers were once sober drivers, spend the rest of your life in prison because all criminals were once not criminals at least that way you'l be consistent with your beliefs that all people need to be treated like criminals for future crimes they may or may not commit
> 
> 
> 
> Sure you can....even if you think preventing access to weapons is "punishment"
> 
> Should someone convicted of beating his wife be allowed to trot down to the local gun shop after having a fight?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is illegal for anyone with a domestic violence conviction to buy a gun
> You might want to learn the existing laws before you say we need more.
> 
> And restricting my behavior even though I have committed no crime is punishment
> tell you what why don't you ground your kids and don't let them out of the house until they are 18 because they might break your house rules in the future
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But, it is NOT illegal from you to sell him a gun. Be aware that those of us on the side of civilization believe that you are guilty of accessory to felony homicide if we can prove you knowingly sold to someone who killed someone with it, and by requiring you to do a background check, we would be able to prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A background check will not prevent murder.  A person can pass a check and still commit murder.
> 
> and in many states it is illegal to sell to anyone ineligible by state law to own a firearm
> 
> Private Sales in Connecticut | Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence
> 
> Last updated October 19, 2016.
> 
> 
> Connecticut prohibits any person, firm or corporation from selling, delivering or otherwise transferring a handgun to any person prohibited by state law from possessing a handgun.1 Handgun transfers may not be made until the person, firm or corporation making the transfer obtains an authorization number – following a background check on the prospective purchaser – from the Connecticut Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (DESPP).2 Moreover, the state prohibits any person, firm, or corporation from transferring a handgun unless the transferee has a permit to carry a handgun, a permit to sell handguns at retail, or a handgun eligibility certificate.3 See the Licensing of Gun Owners & Purchasers in Connecticut section.
> 
> Connecticut also prohibits the sale or transfer of a long gun by someone who is not a federally-licensed firearm dealer, manufacturer, or importer to someone who is not a similarly-licensed person, unless the following conditions are met:
> 
> 
> The prospective transferor and transferee must comply with the documentation and authorization requirements that apply to retail sales of long guns (e.g., (a) the seller must document the transaction with DESPP, maintain copies of the record, and obtain an authorization number from DESPP; (b) the buyer must undergo a national instant criminal background check system (NICS) check; (c) the gun cannot be loaded when transferred; and (d) DESPP must authorize or deny the sale or transfer);4 or
> Starting on January 1, 2014, a federally licensed firearm dealer, upon the request of the prospective transferor or transferee, must consent to initiate a NICS check in accordance with the procedures set forth below, and the background check must show that the transferee is eligible to receive the gun.5
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought that you had no use for "lying fucks like (me)"
> 
> Looks like I will have to put you on ignore to stop your rants. No problem. I do it all the time when I come across befuddled dementia victims while on duty with the sheriff's Auxiliary in my retirement community.
Click to expand...

good riddance asshole

I knew you couldn't quote me on that bullshit you said I said


----------



## Boss

emilynghiem said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought federalism was in support of a strong centralized govt and
> the antifederalist was in support of keeping power on the level of states and people,
> and not ceding this to federal authority. I thought the big fear of a central Constitution
> was it would not be strong enough to check that tendency for the greater collective
> power to start oppressing the local citizens and state sovereignty all over again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are sort of right and sort of confused at the same time. When we were debating Federalism vs. Anti-federalism, the arguments were BOTH opposed to a central federal power over everyone. Federalists argued that we could have a very limited small federal government which left most of our liberty to be determined by the states and people respectively. Anti-federalists feared exactly what has happened in history, that even a small federal government, limited in power, would eventually become a large centralized power enforcing it's will on society.
> 
> Today, we have a different argument. The Federalists are still arguing for a small and limited federal authority where states and people decide most of their own parameters of liberty and we have Statists who believe in a large central authority. Ironically, even though Anti-federalists no longer exist, their arguments proved to be true... we simply couldn't maintain a small limited government over time because the nature of any government is to grow in power over the individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So Boss now there are three groups
> 1. Statists are the ones who WANT the power to grow on the federal level and even fight against enforcing limits on it
> 2. Federalists who argue we can manage a centralized govt are split between the "new anti-federalists" who still believe in the Constitution but fear the whole thing needs to be shut down and stopped vs. the Constitutonalists saying we can use the given system and restore the limitations (and the Statists saying we can keep the given system and don't need to enforce limitations)
> 3. anarchists and independents who don't believe in parties or Constitutional laws at all as being able to stop abuses
> 
> I think the Statists have taken over the position of anti-federalists
> in being opposed to the Constitution as limited govt, but for the opposite reason.
> Before, the anti-federalists didn't think it was strong enough to PREVENT big govt from dominating over individuals.
> Today, the Statists don't want the Constitutional limits as "obstruction" to get in the way of this.
> 
> So the term you use for people who want central govt as the default authority
> in charge of public programs and policies is STATIST. Is that correct?
Click to expand...


That's  correct but they are not taking anything near an anti-federalist position. Their position is exactly what made an anti-federalist an anti-federalist. They were opposed to a central federal government, even in a small limited role. They sought to have us remain a confederation of states without a federal government. The Federalists made the case that a Constitution would limit and restrict the powers of Federal government and rejected the idea that it would grow out of control because they though the people would prevent it. 

It's confusing today because many of the anti-federalist complaints have become the concerns of the modern federalists. Again, both Federalists and Anti-Federalists opposed a large centralized Federal government.


----------



## emilynghiem

Boss said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought federalism was in support of a strong centralized govt and
> the antifederalist was in support of keeping power on the level of states and people,
> and not ceding this to federal authority. I thought the big fear of a central Constitution
> was it would not be strong enough to check that tendency for the greater collective
> power to start oppressing the local citizens and state sovereignty all over again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are sort of right and sort of confused at the same time. When we were debating Federalism vs. Anti-federalism, the arguments were BOTH opposed to a central federal power over everyone. Federalists argued that we could have a very limited small federal government which left most of our liberty to be determined by the states and people respectively. Anti-federalists feared exactly what has happened in history, that even a small federal government, limited in power, would eventually become a large centralized power enforcing it's will on society.
> 
> Today, we have a different argument. The Federalists are still arguing for a small and limited federal authority where states and people decide most of their own parameters of liberty and we have Statists who believe in a large central authority. Ironically, even though Anti-federalists no longer exist, their arguments proved to be true... we simply couldn't maintain a small limited government over time because the nature of any government is to grow in power over the individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So Boss now there are three groups
> 1. Statists are the ones who WANT the power to grow on the federal level and even fight against enforcing limits on it
> 2. Federalists who argue we can manage a centralized govt are split between the "new anti-federalists" who still believe in the Constitution but fear the whole thing needs to be shut down and stopped vs. the Constitutonalists saying we can use the given system and restore the limitations (and the Statists saying we can keep the given system and don't need to enforce limitations)
> 3. anarchists and independents who don't believe in parties or Constitutional laws at all as being able to stop abuses
> 
> I think the Statists have taken over the position of anti-federalists
> in being opposed to the Constitution as limited govt, but for the opposite reason.
> Before, the anti-federalists didn't think it was strong enough to PREVENT big govt from dominating over individuals.
> Today, the Statists don't want the Constitutional limits as "obstruction" to get in the way of this.
> 
> So the term you use for people who want central govt as the default authority
> in charge of public programs and policies is STATIST. Is that correct?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's  correct but they are not taking anything near an anti-federalist position. Their position is exactly what made an anti-federalist an anti-federalist. They were opposed to a central federal government, even in a small limited role. They sought to have us remain a confederation of states without a federal government. The Federalists made the case that a Constitution would limit and restrict the powers of Federal government and rejected the idea that it would grow out of control because they though the people would prevent it.
> 
> It's confusing today because many of the anti-federalist complaints have become the concerns of the modern federalists. Again, both Federalists and Anti-Federalists opposed a large centralized Federal government.
Click to expand...

Can todays Feneralists and antifederalists rise up against the Statists? Why not demand the Statists set up their own programs and not impose through govt on others.

Which Party leaders would have to agree to such a resolution or demand to make it heard? Who do recommend, or what form of petition should the people present? Boss


----------



## ding

rightwinger said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it._
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't preclude regulations
> 
> Who must join the militia, how they are trained, what weapons they have, what the command structure is
> 
> Knowing who has guns, the training they have and where they are is essential to a well regulated militia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.
> 
> No.
> 
> And no.
> 
> Given that the point of the 2nd Amendment is to serve as a check against a standing army of a tyrannical government, giving the government -. the ones we are supposed to be serving as a check against - the details of the militia would make as little sense as arming them with less than the technology of the day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is nothing in the Constitution about militias being a check on the government
> 
> They look at militias as being necessary for the security of a free state......not a check on a free state
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you are splitting hairs.  Same difference. Which is why we look at the statements that were made by the Founding Fathers.  But hey, I'm not trying to convince you.  You won't be happy until all guns are banned and confiscated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are no words in the Constitution relating to the rights of civilians to overthrow government.
> I'm not looking to ban or confiscate all guns. With 300 million out there, that is not going to happen
> 
> But I do believe those who stockpile guns and ammo for the day when they will take on the US Government are certifiable crazy
Click to expand...

The 2nd Amendment is intended to serve as a deterrent against a tyrannical government.  You want the police and military to be the only ones who have semi automatic rifles and high capacity magazines which makes no sense at all.


----------



## ding

rightwinger said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> No.
> 
> And no.
> 
> Given that the point of the 2nd Amendment is to serve as a check against a standing army of a tyrannical government, giving the government -. the ones we are supposed to be serving as a check against - the details of the militia would make as little sense as arming them with less than the technology of the day.
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing in the Constitution about militias being a check on the government
> 
> They look at militias as being necessary for the security of a free state......not a check on a free state
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you are splitting hairs.  Same difference. Which is why we look at the statements that were made by the Founding Fathers.  But hey, I'm not trying to convince you.  You won't be happy until all guns are banned and confiscated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are no words in the Constitution relating to the rights of civilians to overthrow government.
> I'm not looking to ban or confiscate all guns. With 300 million out there, that is not going to happen
> 
> But I do believe those who stockpile guns and ammo for the day when they will take on the US Government are certifiable crazy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that's a very small percentage of gun owners
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I give you ....Ding
Click to expand...

When people have truth on their side they argue facts.  When they have reason on their side they argue logic.  When they have neither they attack the character of the person who has been mopping the floor with them using facts and logic.


----------



## emilynghiem

ding said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't preclude regulations
> 
> Who must join the militia, how they are trained, what weapons they have, what the command structure is
> 
> Knowing who has guns, the training they have and where they are is essential to a well regulated militia
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> No.
> 
> And no.
> 
> Given that the point of the 2nd Amendment is to serve as a check against a standing army of a tyrannical government, giving the government -. the ones we are supposed to be serving as a check against - the details of the militia would make as little sense as arming them with less than the technology of the day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is nothing in the Constitution about militias being a check on the government
> 
> They look at militias as being necessary for the security of a free state......not a check on a free state
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you are splitting hairs.  Same difference. Which is why we look at the statements that were made by the Founding Fathers.  But hey, I'm not trying to convince you.  You won't be happy until all guns are banned and confiscated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are no words in the Constitution relating to the rights of civilians to overthrow government.
> I'm not looking to ban or confiscate all guns. With 300 million out there, that is not going to happen
> 
> But I do believe those who stockpile guns and ammo for the day when they will take on the US Government are certifiable crazy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 2nd Amendment serves as a deterrent against a tyrannical government.  You want the police and military to be the only ones who have semi automatic rifles and high capacity magazines which makes no sense at all.
Click to expand...

Dear ding and rightwinger 
If liberals don't trust police with greater concentrated authority and power , because they fear the abuse of force, then who is left to use arms for defense.

Isn't it better to train more citizens in proper defense of laws for security.

Why put all the power in hands of police, then say you don't trust them with that power. Which way is it?


----------



## emilynghiem

ding said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing in the Constitution about militias being a check on the government
> 
> They look at militias as being necessary for the security of a free state......not a check on a free state
> 
> 
> 
> Now you are splitting hairs.  Same difference. Which is why we look at the statements that were made by the Founding Fathers.  But hey, I'm not trying to convince you.  You won't be happy until all guns are banned and confiscated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are no words in the Constitution relating to the rights of civilians to overthrow government.
> I'm not looking to ban or confiscate all guns. With 300 million out there, that is not going to happen
> 
> But I do believe those who stockpile guns and ammo for the day when they will take on the US Government are certifiable crazy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that's a very small percentage of gun owners
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I give you ....Ding
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When people have truth on their side they argue facts.  When they have reason on their side they argue logic.  When they have neither they attack the character of the person who has been mopping the floor with them using facts and logic.
Click to expand...

Well ding ppl are human too.
Even you digressed and made comments about how someone was brought up by their mother in that other religion thread. That's part of Internet culture with males putting others in their place. If we got sidetracked everytime that happened we'd never finish and get to the point.

My question is how do liberals like rightwinger expect to police the police and govt after giving them all the power? If police are accused of abusing guns now, and accused of skewing the grand jury process in favor of police, wouldn't more power make that worse?

Wouldn't the opposite be to empower citizens to check the govt against abuses?  Teach all districts to manage their own Grievance or complaint and compliance process?  If rightwinger wants more civil means of preventing abuses or crimes, can't both sides agree that arming citizens with knowledge and defense of the laws will do more to enforce consistent standards, deter abuse and reduce the need for violent force?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

emilynghiem said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you are splitting hairs.  Same difference. Which is why we look at the statements that were made by the Founding Fathers.  But hey, I'm not trying to convince you.  You won't be happy until all guns are banned and confiscated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are no words in the Constitution relating to the rights of civilians to overthrow government.
> I'm not looking to ban or confiscate all guns. With 300 million out there, that is not going to happen
> 
> But I do believe those who stockpile guns and ammo for the day when they will take on the US Government are certifiable crazy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that's a very small percentage of gun owners
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I give you ....Ding
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When people have truth on their side they argue facts.  When they have reason on their side they argue logic.  When they have neither they attack the character of the person who has been mopping the floor with them using facts and logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well ding ppl are human too.
> Even you digressed and made comments about how someone was brought up by their mother in that other religion thread. That's part of Internet culture with males putting others in their place. If we got sidetracked everytime that happened we'd never finish and get to the point.
> 
> My question is how do liberals like rightwinger expect to police the police and govt after giving them all the power? If police are accused of abusing guns now, and accused of skewing the grand jury process in favor of police, wouldn't more power make that worse?
> 
> Wouldn't the opposite be to empower citizens to check the govt against abuses?  Teach all districts to manage their own Grievance or complaint and compliance process?  If rightwinger wants more civil means of preventing abuses or crimes, can't both sides agree that arming citizens with knowledge and defense of the laws will do more to enforce consistent standards, deter abuse and reduce the need for violent force?
Click to expand...

“My question is how do liberals like rightwinger expect to police the police and govt after giving them all the power?”

This fails as a straw man fallacy.

Indeed, your post is a lie – ‘liberals’ don’t advocate giving anyone ‘all the power.’


----------



## rightwinger

ding said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't preclude regulations
> 
> Who must join the militia, how they are trained, what weapons they have, what the command structure is
> 
> Knowing who has guns, the training they have and where they are is essential to a well regulated militia
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> No.
> 
> And no.
> 
> Given that the point of the 2nd Amendment is to serve as a check against a standing army of a tyrannical government, giving the government -. the ones we are supposed to be serving as a check against - the details of the militia would make as little sense as arming them with less than the technology of the day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is nothing in the Constitution about militias being a check on the government
> 
> They look at militias as being necessary for the security of a free state......not a check on a free state
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you are splitting hairs.  Same difference. Which is why we look at the statements that were made by the Founding Fathers.  But hey, I'm not trying to convince you.  You won't be happy until all guns are banned and confiscated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are no words in the Constitution relating to the rights of civilians to overthrow government.
> I'm not looking to ban or confiscate all guns. With 300 million out there, that is not going to happen
> 
> But I do believe those who stockpile guns and ammo for the day when they will take on the US Government are certifiable crazy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 2nd Amendment is intended to serve as a deterrent against a tyrannical government.  You want the police and military to be the only ones who have semi automatic rifles and high capacity magazines which makes no sense at all.
Click to expand...

I trust trained police and military with automatic rifles and high capacity magazines more than some stupid fucking kid that nobody ever liked


----------



## rightwinger

emilynghiem said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> No.
> 
> And no.
> 
> Given that the point of the 2nd Amendment is to serve as a check against a standing army of a tyrannical government, giving the government -. the ones we are supposed to be serving as a check against - the details of the militia would make as little sense as arming them with less than the technology of the day.
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing in the Constitution about militias being a check on the government
> 
> They look at militias as being necessary for the security of a free state......not a check on a free state
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you are splitting hairs.  Same difference. Which is why we look at the statements that were made by the Founding Fathers.  But hey, I'm not trying to convince you.  You won't be happy until all guns are banned and confiscated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are no words in the Constitution relating to the rights of civilians to overthrow government.
> I'm not looking to ban or confiscate all guns. With 300 million out there, that is not going to happen
> 
> But I do believe those who stockpile guns and ammo for the day when they will take on the US Government are certifiable crazy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 2nd Amendment serves as a deterrent against a tyrannical government.  You want the police and military to be the only ones who have semi automatic rifles and high capacity magazines which makes no sense at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear ding and rightwinger
> If liberals don't trust police with greater concentrated authority and power , because they fear the abuse of force, then who is left to use arms for defense.
> 
> Isn't it better to train more citizens in proper defense of laws for security.
> 
> Why put all the power in hands of police, then say you don't trust them with that power. Which way is it?
Click to expand...

As a citizen, I have more control over who gets selected for the police force, the training they receive and the rules and regulations they comply with

I have no control over a pimply faced kid that wants to get even with everyone that ever picked on him


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

rightwinger said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it._
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't preclude regulations
> 
> Who must join the militia, how they are trained, what weapons they have, what the command structure is
> 
> Knowing who has guns, the training they have and where they are is essential to a well regulated militia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.
> 
> No.
> 
> And no.
> 
> Given that the point of the 2nd Amendment is to serve as a check against a standing army of a tyrannical government, giving the government -. the ones we are supposed to be serving as a check against - the details of the militia would make as little sense as arming them with less than the technology of the day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is nothing in the Constitution about militias being a check on the government
> 
> They look at militias as being necessary for the security of a free state......not a check on a free state
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you are splitting hairs.  Same difference. Which is why we look at the statements that were made by the Founding Fathers.  But hey, I'm not trying to convince you.  You won't be happy until all guns are banned and confiscated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are no words in the Constitution relating to the rights of civilians to overthrow government.
> I'm not looking to ban or confiscate all guns. With 300 million out there, that is not going to happen
> 
> But I do believe those who stockpile guns and ammo for the day when they will take on the US Government are certifiable crazy
Click to expand...

Correct.

The Second Amendment recognizes an individual right to possess a firearm, along with the right to self-defense.

There is no Second Amendment ‘right’ to ‘overthrow’ the government, the notion is as ridiculous as it is insane.

And the right to self-defense concerns protecting oneself from criminal attack by other private persons – attempted robbery, home invasion, rape, murder, etc. – not to ‘defend’ oneself from ‘the government’ incorrectly perceived to be ‘tyrannical.’


----------



## ding

frigidweirdo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately logic is logic, you can't have your own little personalized logic.  No, you don't know anyone making arguments for tanks, except for yourself. Your argument is this: "so the militia and its arms must never be under the auspice of that government. The same logic applies to the type of weaponry they should possess."
> 
> 
> 
> In this case I can as you started off this line of thought by making an assumption that was not true.  It is not my argument that the 2nd Amendment grants us the right to own any weapon.  This is YOUR weak tea argument, not mine and it shows how desperate you are becoming to deny us the arms we need which are semi-automatic rifles with high capacity magazines.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> That all weaponry the militia has should not be under govt control. I'm going to assume right now that you mean the federal govt, this is an important point, but let me know if I'm wrong under your "logic".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.  You are wrong.  All government control.  Period.  Let's be realistic here, your end game is banning guns.  Let's not pretend you are trying to refine the finer points of the 2nd Amendment, ok?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying the people should be able to have militia weaponry, then I say tanks are militia weaponry then all of a sudden you're not saying people should have militia weaponry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have been very clear about what I have said.  You are the one who is saying all manner of ridiculous things in a feeble attempt at constructing a straw-man of your own making.  Let's not pretend you are trying to refine the finer points of the 2nd Amendment, ok?  Your end game is banning guns.
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, should people be able to have militia weaponry at home, or should they not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My last statement was very clear.  The 2nd Amendment grants  peaceable law abiding citizens the right to own, possess, keep and bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I should have just left it earlier on. You're back to talking complete bollocks again.
Click to expand...

No.  I'm not talking bollocks again and I wasn't talking bollocks before.  Your end game is banning guns.  You don't care about the 2nd Amendment.


----------



## ding

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't preclude regulations
> 
> Who must join the militia, how they are trained, what weapons they have, what the command structure is
> 
> Knowing who has guns, the training they have and where they are is essential to a well regulated militia
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> No.
> 
> And no.
> 
> Given that the point of the 2nd Amendment is to serve as a check against a standing army of a tyrannical government, giving the government -. the ones we are supposed to be serving as a check against - the details of the militia would make as little sense as arming them with less than the technology of the day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is nothing in the Constitution about militias being a check on the government
> 
> They look at militias as being necessary for the security of a free state......not a check on a free state
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you are splitting hairs.  Same difference. Which is why we look at the statements that were made by the Founding Fathers.  But hey, I'm not trying to convince you.  You won't be happy until all guns are banned and confiscated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are no words in the Constitution relating to the rights of civilians to overthrow government.
> I'm not looking to ban or confiscate all guns. With 300 million out there, that is not going to happen
> 
> But I do believe those who stockpile guns and ammo for the day when they will take on the US Government are certifiable crazy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct.
> 
> The Second Amendment recognizes an individual right to possess a firearm, along with the right to self-defense.
> 
> There is no Second Amendment ‘right’ to ‘overthrow’ the government, the notion is as ridiculous as it is insane.
> 
> And the right to self-defense concerns protecting oneself from criminal attack by other private persons – attempted robbery, home invasion, rape, murder, etc. – not to ‘defend’ oneself from ‘the government’ incorrectly perceived to be ‘tyrannical.’
Click to expand...

Not a just government.  No.  But I am glad that you agree with everything else.


----------



## ding

rightwinger said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> No.
> 
> And no.
> 
> Given that the point of the 2nd Amendment is to serve as a check against a standing army of a tyrannical government, giving the government -. the ones we are supposed to be serving as a check against - the details of the militia would make as little sense as arming them with less than the technology of the day.
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing in the Constitution about militias being a check on the government
> 
> They look at militias as being necessary for the security of a free state......not a check on a free state
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you are splitting hairs.  Same difference. Which is why we look at the statements that were made by the Founding Fathers.  But hey, I'm not trying to convince you.  You won't be happy until all guns are banned and confiscated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are no words in the Constitution relating to the rights of civilians to overthrow government.
> I'm not looking to ban or confiscate all guns. With 300 million out there, that is not going to happen
> 
> But I do believe those who stockpile guns and ammo for the day when they will take on the US Government are certifiable crazy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 2nd Amendment is intended to serve as a deterrent against a tyrannical government.  You want the police and military to be the only ones who have semi automatic rifles and high capacity magazines which makes no sense at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I trust trained police and military with automatic rifles and high capacity magazines more than some stupid fucking kid that nobody ever liked
Click to expand...

It's not up to you to decide.


----------



## emilynghiem

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are no words in the Constitution relating to the rights of civilians to overthrow government.
> I'm not looking to ban or confiscate all guns. With 300 million out there, that is not going to happen
> 
> But I do believe those who stockpile guns and ammo for the day when they will take on the US Government are certifiable crazy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that's a very small percentage of gun owners
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I give you ....Ding
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When people have truth on their side they argue facts.  When they have reason on their side they argue logic.  When they have neither they attack the character of the person who has been mopping the floor with them using facts and logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well ding ppl are human too.
> Even you digressed and made comments about how someone was brought up by their mother in that other religion thread. That's part of Internet culture with males putting others in their place. If we got sidetracked everytime that happened we'd never finish and get to the point.
> 
> My question is how do liberals like rightwinger expect to police the police and govt after giving them all the power? If police are accused of abusing guns now, and accused of skewing the grand jury process in favor of police, wouldn't more power make that worse?
> 
> Wouldn't the opposite be to empower citizens to check the govt against abuses?  Teach all districts to manage their own Grievance or complaint and compliance process?  If rightwinger wants more civil means of preventing abuses or crimes, can't both sides agree that arming citizens with knowledge and defense of the laws will do more to enforce consistent standards, deter abuse and reduce the need for violent force?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “My question is how do liberals like rightwinger expect to police the police and govt after giving them all the power?”
> 
> This fails as a straw man fallacy.
> 
> Indeed, your post is a lie – ‘liberals’ don’t advocate giving anyone ‘all the power.’
Click to expand...


OK C_Clayton_Jones
so you explain it then
If you only trust military police or militia with the right to bear arms,
how do you plan to get any better results in preventing abuse of excessive force?

If the answer is better training and screening for police and military,
isn't that the same answer we should apply to citizens and the right to bear arms?

Make sure citizens have proper training in defending laws and due process,
as police and military are required,
but that doesn't mean citizens have to be part of a formal militia to go through training, right?

So what is your solution
to stop abuse of force by either govt or nongovt
police or nonpolice, military/formal militia or other citizens?

Isn't education and training in laws and enforcement the solution either way?


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't preclude regulations
> 
> Who must join the militia, how they are trained, what weapons they have, what the command structure is
> 
> Knowing who has guns, the training they have and where they are is essential to a well regulated militia
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> No.
> 
> And no.
> 
> Given that the point of the 2nd Amendment is to serve as a check against a standing army of a tyrannical government, giving the government -. the ones we are supposed to be serving as a check against - the details of the militia would make as little sense as arming them with less than the technology of the day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is nothing in the Constitution about militias being a check on the government
> 
> They look at militias as being necessary for the security of a free state......not a check on a free state
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you are splitting hairs.  Same difference. Which is why we look at the statements that were made by the Founding Fathers.  But hey, I'm not trying to convince you.  You won't be happy until all guns are banned and confiscated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are no words in the Constitution relating to the rights of civilians to overthrow government.
> I'm not looking to ban or confiscate all guns. With 300 million out there, that is not going to happen
> 
> But I do believe those who stockpile guns and ammo for the day when they will take on the US Government are certifiable crazy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct.
> 
> The Second Amendment recognizes an individual right to possess a firearm, along with the right to self-defense.
> 
> There is no Second Amendment ‘right’ to ‘overthrow’ the government, the notion is as ridiculous as it is insane.
> 
> And the right to self-defense concerns protecting oneself from criminal attack by other private persons – attempted robbery, home invasion, rape, murder, etc. – not to ‘defend’ oneself from ‘the government’ incorrectly perceived to be ‘tyrannical.’
Click to expand...


*“No Free Man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.  The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”  *
 -*Thomas Jefferson*


----------



## frigidweirdo

ding said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately logic is logic, you can't have your own little personalized logic.  No, you don't know anyone making arguments for tanks, except for yourself. Your argument is this: "so the militia and its arms must never be under the auspice of that government. The same logic applies to the type of weaponry they should possess."
> 
> 
> 
> In this case I can as you started off this line of thought by making an assumption that was not true.  It is not my argument that the 2nd Amendment grants us the right to own any weapon.  This is YOUR weak tea argument, not mine and it shows how desperate you are becoming to deny us the arms we need which are semi-automatic rifles with high capacity magazines.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> That all weaponry the militia has should not be under govt control. I'm going to assume right now that you mean the federal govt, this is an important point, but let me know if I'm wrong under your "logic".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.  You are wrong.  All government control.  Period.  Let's be realistic here, your end game is banning guns.  Let's not pretend you are trying to refine the finer points of the 2nd Amendment, ok?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying the people should be able to have militia weaponry, then I say tanks are militia weaponry then all of a sudden you're not saying people should have militia weaponry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have been very clear about what I have said.  You are the one who is saying all manner of ridiculous things in a feeble attempt at constructing a straw-man of your own making.  Let's not pretend you are trying to refine the finer points of the 2nd Amendment, ok?  Your end game is banning guns.
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, should people be able to have militia weaponry at home, or should they not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My last statement was very clear.  The 2nd Amendment grants  peaceable law abiding citizens the right to own, possess, keep and bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I should have just left it earlier on. You're back to talking complete bollocks again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I'm not talking bollocks again and I wasn't talking bollocks before.  Your end game is banning guns.  You don't care about the 2nd Amendment.
Click to expand...


Telling people what they think is talking bollocks. You can't even read what I write, let alone understand what I'm thinking.


----------



## ding

frigidweirdo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately logic is logic, you can't have your own little personalized logic.  No, you don't know anyone making arguments for tanks, except for yourself. Your argument is this: "so the militia and its arms must never be under the auspice of that government. The same logic applies to the type of weaponry they should possess."
> 
> 
> 
> In this case I can as you started off this line of thought by making an assumption that was not true.  It is not my argument that the 2nd Amendment grants us the right to own any weapon.  This is YOUR weak tea argument, not mine and it shows how desperate you are becoming to deny us the arms we need which are semi-automatic rifles with high capacity magazines.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> That all weaponry the militia has should not be under govt control. I'm going to assume right now that you mean the federal govt, this is an important point, but let me know if I'm wrong under your "logic".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.  You are wrong.  All government control.  Period.  Let's be realistic here, your end game is banning guns.  Let's not pretend you are trying to refine the finer points of the 2nd Amendment, ok?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying the people should be able to have militia weaponry, then I say tanks are militia weaponry then all of a sudden you're not saying people should have militia weaponry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have been very clear about what I have said.  You are the one who is saying all manner of ridiculous things in a feeble attempt at constructing a straw-man of your own making.  Let's not pretend you are trying to refine the finer points of the 2nd Amendment, ok?  Your end game is banning guns.
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, should people be able to have militia weaponry at home, or should they not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My last statement was very clear.  The 2nd Amendment grants  peaceable law abiding citizens the right to own, possess, keep and bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I should have just left it earlier on. You're back to talking complete bollocks again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I'm not talking bollocks again and I wasn't talking bollocks before.  Your end game is banning guns.  You don't care about the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Telling people what they think is talking bollocks. You can't even read what I write, let alone understand what I'm thinking.
Click to expand...

Tell me how you don't want to ban guns then.  Prove me wrong.


----------



## ding

Checkmate.  This is too easy.


----------



## frigidweirdo

ding said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately logic is logic, you can't have your own little personalized logic.  No, you don't know anyone making arguments for tanks, except for yourself. Your argument is this: "so the militia and its arms must never be under the auspice of that government. The same logic applies to the type of weaponry they should possess."
> 
> 
> 
> In this case I can as you started off this line of thought by making an assumption that was not true.  It is not my argument that the 2nd Amendment grants us the right to own any weapon.  This is YOUR weak tea argument, not mine and it shows how desperate you are becoming to deny us the arms we need which are semi-automatic rifles with high capacity magazines.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> That all weaponry the militia has should not be under govt control. I'm going to assume right now that you mean the federal govt, this is an important point, but let me know if I'm wrong under your "logic".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.  You are wrong.  All government control.  Period.  Let's be realistic here, your end game is banning guns.  Let's not pretend you are trying to refine the finer points of the 2nd Amendment, ok?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying the people should be able to have militia weaponry, then I say tanks are militia weaponry then all of a sudden you're not saying people should have militia weaponry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have been very clear about what I have said.  You are the one who is saying all manner of ridiculous things in a feeble attempt at constructing a straw-man of your own making.  Let's not pretend you are trying to refine the finer points of the 2nd Amendment, ok?  Your end game is banning guns.
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, should people be able to have militia weaponry at home, or should they not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My last statement was very clear.  The 2nd Amendment grants  peaceable law abiding citizens the right to own, possess, keep and bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I should have just left it earlier on. You're back to talking complete bollocks again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I'm not talking bollocks again and I wasn't talking bollocks before.  Your end game is banning guns.  You don't care about the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Telling people what they think is talking bollocks. You can't even read what I write, let alone understand what I'm thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell me how you don't want to ban guns then.  Prove me wrong.
Click to expand...


Is there any point? At no time during any conversation with you have you shown the slightest interest in debate. It's like talking with a brick wall that has buttons you press and automated answers come out. 

No dude, I'm done with you.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Billy_Kinetta said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> No.
> 
> And no.
> 
> Given that the point of the 2nd Amendment is to serve as a check against a standing army of a tyrannical government, giving the government -. the ones we are supposed to be serving as a check against - the details of the militia would make as little sense as arming them with less than the technology of the day.
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing in the Constitution about militias being a check on the government
> 
> They look at militias as being necessary for the security of a free state......not a check on a free state
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you are splitting hairs.  Same difference. Which is why we look at the statements that were made by the Founding Fathers.  But hey, I'm not trying to convince you.  You won't be happy until all guns are banned and confiscated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are no words in the Constitution relating to the rights of civilians to overthrow government.
> I'm not looking to ban or confiscate all guns. With 300 million out there, that is not going to happen
> 
> But I do believe those who stockpile guns and ammo for the day when they will take on the US Government are certifiable crazy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct.
> 
> The Second Amendment recognizes an individual right to possess a firearm, along with the right to self-defense.
> 
> There is no Second Amendment ‘right’ to ‘overthrow’ the government, the notion is as ridiculous as it is insane.
> 
> And the right to self-defense concerns protecting oneself from criminal attack by other private persons – attempted robbery, home invasion, rape, murder, etc. – not to ‘defend’ oneself from ‘the government’ incorrectly perceived to be ‘tyrannical.’
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *“No Free Man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.  The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”  *
> -*Thomas Jefferson*
Click to expand...


Then again you have to wonder what Jefferson would say today. I doubt he'd be of the same opinion.


----------



## Skull Pilot

rightwinger said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> No.
> 
> And no.
> 
> Given that the point of the 2nd Amendment is to serve as a check against a standing army of a tyrannical government, giving the government -. the ones we are supposed to be serving as a check against - the details of the militia would make as little sense as arming them with less than the technology of the day.
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing in the Constitution about militias being a check on the government
> 
> They look at militias as being necessary for the security of a free state......not a check on a free state
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you are splitting hairs.  Same difference. Which is why we look at the statements that were made by the Founding Fathers.  But hey, I'm not trying to convince you.  You won't be happy until all guns are banned and confiscated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are no words in the Constitution relating to the rights of civilians to overthrow government.
> I'm not looking to ban or confiscate all guns. With 300 million out there, that is not going to happen
> 
> But I do believe those who stockpile guns and ammo for the day when they will take on the US Government are certifiable crazy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 2nd Amendment is intended to serve as a deterrent against a tyrannical government.  You want the police and military to be the only ones who have semi automatic rifles and high capacity magazines which makes no sense at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I trust trained police and military with automatic rifles and high capacity magazines more than some stupid fucking kid that nobody ever liked
Click to expand...

civilians can;t buy automatic rifles without special permits and if they get the permit they can only buy automatic weapons made before 1985

and you have to be 18 to buy a rifle and 21 to buy a handgun in most states iow an aduly


----------



## Skull Pilot

rightwinger said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing in the Constitution about militias being a check on the government
> 
> They look at militias as being necessary for the security of a free state......not a check on a free state
> 
> 
> 
> Now you are splitting hairs.  Same difference. Which is why we look at the statements that were made by the Founding Fathers.  But hey, I'm not trying to convince you.  You won't be happy until all guns are banned and confiscated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are no words in the Constitution relating to the rights of civilians to overthrow government.
> I'm not looking to ban or confiscate all guns. With 300 million out there, that is not going to happen
> 
> But I do believe those who stockpile guns and ammo for the day when they will take on the US Government are certifiable crazy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 2nd Amendment serves as a deterrent against a tyrannical government.  You want the police and military to be the only ones who have semi automatic rifles and high capacity magazines which makes no sense at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear ding and rightwinger
> If liberals don't trust police with greater concentrated authority and power , because they fear the abuse of force, then who is left to use arms for defense.
> 
> Isn't it better to train more citizens in proper defense of laws for security.
> 
> Why put all the power in hands of police, then say you don't trust them with that power. Which way is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As a citizen, I have more control over who gets selected for the police force, the training they receive and the rules and regulations they comply with
> 
> I have no control over a pimply faced kid that wants to get even with everyone that ever picked on him
Click to expand...

you have no control over who gets hired by the cops

and like I said you have to be 18 to buy a long gun legally


----------



## ding

frigidweirdo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> In this case I can as you started off this line of thought by making an assumption that was not true.  It is not my argument that the 2nd Amendment grants us the right to own any weapon.  This is YOUR weak tea argument, not mine and it shows how desperate you are becoming to deny us the arms we need which are semi-automatic rifles with high capacity magazines.
> 
> 
> Yes.  You are wrong.  All government control.  Period.  Let's be realistic here, your end game is banning guns.  Let's not pretend you are trying to refine the finer points of the 2nd Amendment, ok?
> 
> 
> I have been very clear about what I have said.  You are the one who is saying all manner of ridiculous things in a feeble attempt at constructing a straw-man of your own making.  Let's not pretend you are trying to refine the finer points of the 2nd Amendment, ok?  Your end game is banning guns.
> 
> My last statement was very clear.  The 2nd Amendment grants  peaceable law abiding citizens the right to own, possess, keep and bear arms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I should have just left it earlier on. You're back to talking complete bollocks again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I'm not talking bollocks again and I wasn't talking bollocks before.  Your end game is banning guns.  You don't care about the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Telling people what they think is talking bollocks. You can't even read what I write, let alone understand what I'm thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell me how you don't want to ban guns then.  Prove me wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is there any point? At no time during any conversation with you have you shown the slightest interest in debate. It's like talking with a brick wall that has buttons you press and automated answers come out.
> 
> No dude, I'm done with you.
Click to expand...

The point would have been to prove me wrong.  Wasn't that a good enough reason to say you didn't want to ban guns if you really didn't want to ban guns.  The problem is that I nailed it.  You didn't have any other choice but to feign indignity and stomp off into the sunset.  It was exactly as I called it.  Checkmate.


----------



## rightwinger

ding said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing in the Constitution about militias being a check on the government
> 
> They look at militias as being necessary for the security of a free state......not a check on a free state
> 
> 
> 
> Now you are splitting hairs.  Same difference. Which is why we look at the statements that were made by the Founding Fathers.  But hey, I'm not trying to convince you.  You won't be happy until all guns are banned and confiscated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are no words in the Constitution relating to the rights of civilians to overthrow government.
> I'm not looking to ban or confiscate all guns. With 300 million out there, that is not going to happen
> 
> But I do believe those who stockpile guns and ammo for the day when they will take on the US Government are certifiable crazy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 2nd Amendment is intended to serve as a deterrent against a tyrannical government.  You want the police and military to be the only ones who have semi automatic rifles and high capacity magazines which makes no sense at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I trust trained police and military with automatic rifles and high capacity magazines more than some stupid fucking kid that nobody ever liked
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not up to you to decide.
Click to expand...


Actually, it is

That is why I vote


----------



## rightwinger

Billy_Kinetta said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> No.
> 
> And no.
> 
> Given that the point of the 2nd Amendment is to serve as a check against a standing army of a tyrannical government, giving the government -. the ones we are supposed to be serving as a check against - the details of the militia would make as little sense as arming them with less than the technology of the day.
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing in the Constitution about militias being a check on the government
> 
> They look at militias as being necessary for the security of a free state......not a check on a free state
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you are splitting hairs.  Same difference. Which is why we look at the statements that were made by the Founding Fathers.  But hey, I'm not trying to convince you.  You won't be happy until all guns are banned and confiscated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are no words in the Constitution relating to the rights of civilians to overthrow government.
> I'm not looking to ban or confiscate all guns. With 300 million out there, that is not going to happen
> 
> But I do believe those who stockpile guns and ammo for the day when they will take on the US Government are certifiable crazy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct.
> 
> The Second Amendment recognizes an individual right to possess a firearm, along with the right to self-defense.
> 
> There is no Second Amendment ‘right’ to ‘overthrow’ the government, the notion is as ridiculous as it is insane.
> 
> And the right to self-defense concerns protecting oneself from criminal attack by other private persons – attempted robbery, home invasion, rape, murder, etc. – not to ‘defend’ oneself from ‘the government’ incorrectly perceived to be ‘tyrannical.’
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *“No Free Man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.  The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”  *
> -*Thomas Jefferson*
Click to expand...


Those words never made it into the Constitution or into any law


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

frigidweirdo said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing in the Constitution about militias being a check on the government
> 
> They look at militias as being necessary for the security of a free state......not a check on a free state
> 
> 
> 
> Now you are splitting hairs.  Same difference. Which is why we look at the statements that were made by the Founding Fathers.  But hey, I'm not trying to convince you.  You won't be happy until all guns are banned and confiscated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are no words in the Constitution relating to the rights of civilians to overthrow government.
> I'm not looking to ban or confiscate all guns. With 300 million out there, that is not going to happen
> 
> But I do believe those who stockpile guns and ammo for the day when they will take on the US Government are certifiable crazy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct.
> 
> The Second Amendment recognizes an individual right to possess a firearm, along with the right to self-defense.
> 
> There is no Second Amendment ‘right’ to ‘overthrow’ the government, the notion is as ridiculous as it is insane.
> 
> And the right to self-defense concerns protecting oneself from criminal attack by other private persons – attempted robbery, home invasion, rape, murder, etc. – not to ‘defend’ oneself from ‘the government’ incorrectly perceived to be ‘tyrannical.’
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *“No Free Man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.  The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”  *
> -*Thomas Jefferson*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then again you have to wonder what Jefferson would say today. I doubt he'd be of the same opinion.
Click to expand...


Speculation.  Irrelevant.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

rightwinger said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing in the Constitution about militias being a check on the government
> 
> They look at militias as being necessary for the security of a free state......not a check on a free state
> 
> 
> 
> Now you are splitting hairs.  Same difference. Which is why we look at the statements that were made by the Founding Fathers.  But hey, I'm not trying to convince you.  You won't be happy until all guns are banned and confiscated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are no words in the Constitution relating to the rights of civilians to overthrow government.
> I'm not looking to ban or confiscate all guns. With 300 million out there, that is not going to happen
> 
> But I do believe those who stockpile guns and ammo for the day when they will take on the US Government are certifiable crazy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct.
> 
> The Second Amendment recognizes an individual right to possess a firearm, along with the right to self-defense.
> 
> There is no Second Amendment ‘right’ to ‘overthrow’ the government, the notion is as ridiculous as it is insane.
> 
> And the right to self-defense concerns protecting oneself from criminal attack by other private persons – attempted robbery, home invasion, rape, murder, etc. – not to ‘defend’ oneself from ‘the government’ incorrectly perceived to be ‘tyrannical.’
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *“No Free Man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.  The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”  *
> -*Thomas Jefferson*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those words never made it into the Constitution or into any law
Click to expand...


No, but they explain the rationale behind the 2A.


----------



## rightwinger

Billy_Kinetta said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you are splitting hairs.  Same difference. Which is why we look at the statements that were made by the Founding Fathers.  But hey, I'm not trying to convince you.  You won't be happy until all guns are banned and confiscated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are no words in the Constitution relating to the rights of civilians to overthrow government.
> I'm not looking to ban or confiscate all guns. With 300 million out there, that is not going to happen
> 
> But I do believe those who stockpile guns and ammo for the day when they will take on the US Government are certifiable crazy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct.
> 
> The Second Amendment recognizes an individual right to possess a firearm, along with the right to self-defense.
> 
> There is no Second Amendment ‘right’ to ‘overthrow’ the government, the notion is as ridiculous as it is insane.
> 
> And the right to self-defense concerns protecting oneself from criminal attack by other private persons – attempted robbery, home invasion, rape, murder, etc. – not to ‘defend’ oneself from ‘the government’ incorrectly perceived to be ‘tyrannical.’
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *“No Free Man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.  The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”  *
> -*Thomas Jefferson*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those words never made it into the Constitution or into any law
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, but they explain the rationale behind the 2A.
Click to expand...


If they wanted those words, they would have put them in

As it is, The Constitution makes no provisions for overthrowing the government peacefully or with force


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

rightwinger said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are no words in the Constitution relating to the rights of civilians to overthrow government.
> I'm not looking to ban or confiscate all guns. With 300 million out there, that is not going to happen
> 
> But I do believe those who stockpile guns and ammo for the day when they will take on the US Government are certifiable crazy
> 
> 
> 
> Correct.
> 
> The Second Amendment recognizes an individual right to possess a firearm, along with the right to self-defense.
> 
> There is no Second Amendment ‘right’ to ‘overthrow’ the government, the notion is as ridiculous as it is insane.
> 
> And the right to self-defense concerns protecting oneself from criminal attack by other private persons – attempted robbery, home invasion, rape, murder, etc. – not to ‘defend’ oneself from ‘the government’ incorrectly perceived to be ‘tyrannical.’
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *“No Free Man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.  The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”  *
> -*Thomas Jefferson*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those words never made it into the Constitution or into any law
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, but they explain the rationale behind the 2A.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they wanted those words, they would have put them in
> 
> As it is, The Constitution makes no provisions for overthrowing the government peacefully or with force
Click to expand...


The people need no special permission to oppose a government gone wrong.  Just what do you think the whole idea of this experiment is?


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

frigidweirdo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.
> 
> "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> "_f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
> 
> - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.
> 
> "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"
> 
> Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"
> 
> The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.
> 
> "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
> 
> "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
> 
> "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly the right to bear arms doesn't give you an armed populace. That's the right to keep arms. The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia.
> 
> i.e., the militia with citizen soldiers, that means you need people with the guns for the militia, and you need people to use the guns in the militia.
Click to expand...


  Maybe this'll help.....


----------



## rightwinger

Billy_Kinetta said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct.
> 
> The Second Amendment recognizes an individual right to possess a firearm, along with the right to self-defense.
> 
> There is no Second Amendment ‘right’ to ‘overthrow’ the government, the notion is as ridiculous as it is insane.
> 
> And the right to self-defense concerns protecting oneself from criminal attack by other private persons – attempted robbery, home invasion, rape, murder, etc. – not to ‘defend’ oneself from ‘the government’ incorrectly perceived to be ‘tyrannical.’
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *“No Free Man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.  The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”  *
> -*Thomas Jefferson*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those words never made it into the Constitution or into any law
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, but they explain the rationale behind the 2A.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they wanted those words, they would have put them in
> 
> As it is, The Constitution makes no provisions for overthrowing the government peacefully or with force
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The people need no special permission to oppose a government gone wrong.  Just what do you think the whole idea of this experiment is?
Click to expand...


And a government needs no permission to put down an armed rebellion


----------



## Skull Pilot

rightwinger said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are no words in the Constitution relating to the rights of civilians to overthrow government.
> I'm not looking to ban or confiscate all guns. With 300 million out there, that is not going to happen
> 
> But I do believe those who stockpile guns and ammo for the day when they will take on the US Government are certifiable crazy
> 
> 
> 
> Correct.
> 
> The Second Amendment recognizes an individual right to possess a firearm, along with the right to self-defense.
> 
> There is no Second Amendment ‘right’ to ‘overthrow’ the government, the notion is as ridiculous as it is insane.
> 
> And the right to self-defense concerns protecting oneself from criminal attack by other private persons – attempted robbery, home invasion, rape, murder, etc. – not to ‘defend’ oneself from ‘the government’ incorrectly perceived to be ‘tyrannical.’
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *“No Free Man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.  The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”  *
> -*Thomas Jefferson*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those words never made it into the Constitution or into any law
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, but they explain the rationale behind the 2A.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they wanted those words, they would have put them in
> 
> As it is, The Constitution makes no provisions for overthrowing the government peacefully or with force
Click to expand...


No but it does that the citizens have the right to be armed to protect the security of the free state.

Do you think it's impossible for the government to threaten the security of a free state?


----------



## frigidweirdo

ding said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I should have just left it earlier on. You're back to talking complete bollocks again.
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I'm not talking bollocks again and I wasn't talking bollocks before.  Your end game is banning guns.  You don't care about the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Telling people what they think is talking bollocks. You can't even read what I write, let alone understand what I'm thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell me how you don't want to ban guns then.  Prove me wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is there any point? At no time during any conversation with you have you shown the slightest interest in debate. It's like talking with a brick wall that has buttons you press and automated answers come out.
> 
> No dude, I'm done with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The point would have been to prove me wrong.  Wasn't that a good enough reason to say you didn't want to ban guns if you really didn't want to ban guns.  The problem is that I nailed it.  You didn't have any other choice but to feign indignity and stomp off into the sunset.  It was exactly as I called it.  Checkmate.
Click to expand...


Exactly the petty attitude I'd expect from someone whose posts are full of nonsense. Ignore list for you. I'm not dealing with such idiocy.


----------



## rightwinger

Skull Pilot said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct.
> 
> The Second Amendment recognizes an individual right to possess a firearm, along with the right to self-defense.
> 
> There is no Second Amendment ‘right’ to ‘overthrow’ the government, the notion is as ridiculous as it is insane.
> 
> And the right to self-defense concerns protecting oneself from criminal attack by other private persons – attempted robbery, home invasion, rape, murder, etc. – not to ‘defend’ oneself from ‘the government’ incorrectly perceived to be ‘tyrannical.’
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *“No Free Man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.  The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”  *
> -*Thomas Jefferson*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those words never made it into the Constitution or into any law
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, but they explain the rationale behind the 2A.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they wanted those words, they would have put them in
> 
> As it is, The Constitution makes no provisions for overthrowing the government peacefully or with force
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No but it does that the citizens have the right to be armed to protect the security of the free state.
> 
> Do you think it's impossible for the government to threaten the security of a free state?
Click to expand...


In the US....yes I do

As long as you have Constitutional means to vote, speak freely, have a free press, access to the courts to address grievances


----------



## Skull Pilot

rightwinger said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> *“No Free Man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.  The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”  *
> -*Thomas Jefferson*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those words never made it into the Constitution or into any law
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, but they explain the rationale behind the 2A.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they wanted those words, they would have put them in
> 
> As it is, The Constitution makes no provisions for overthrowing the government peacefully or with force
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No but it does that the citizens have the right to be armed to protect the security of the free state.
> 
> Do you think it's impossible for the government to threaten the security of a free state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the US....yes I do
> 
> As long as you have Constitutional means to vote, speak freely, have a free press, access to the courts to address grievances
Click to expand...


While I think it is unlikely I do not think it's impossible

One time I thought warrantless wiretaps and massive data collection on the people by the government,  and other egregiousnesses were impossible but the Patriot Act put an end to that bit of naivete


----------



## frigidweirdo

Billy_Kinetta said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you are splitting hairs.  Same difference. Which is why we look at the statements that were made by the Founding Fathers.  But hey, I'm not trying to convince you.  You won't be happy until all guns are banned and confiscated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are no words in the Constitution relating to the rights of civilians to overthrow government.
> I'm not looking to ban or confiscate all guns. With 300 million out there, that is not going to happen
> 
> But I do believe those who stockpile guns and ammo for the day when they will take on the US Government are certifiable crazy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct.
> 
> The Second Amendment recognizes an individual right to possess a firearm, along with the right to self-defense.
> 
> There is no Second Amendment ‘right’ to ‘overthrow’ the government, the notion is as ridiculous as it is insane.
> 
> And the right to self-defense concerns protecting oneself from criminal attack by other private persons – attempted robbery, home invasion, rape, murder, etc. – not to ‘defend’ oneself from ‘the government’ incorrectly perceived to be ‘tyrannical.’
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *“No Free Man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.  The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”  *
> -*Thomas Jefferson*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then again you have to wonder what Jefferson would say today. I doubt he'd be of the same opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speculation.  Irrelevant.
Click to expand...


Shit post.


----------



## Tennyson

rightwinger said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> *“No Free Man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.  The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”  *
> -*Thomas Jefferson*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those words never made it into the Constitution or into any law
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, but they explain the rationale behind the 2A.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they wanted those words, they would have put them in
> 
> As it is, The Constitution makes no provisions for overthrowing the government peacefully or with force
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The people need no special permission to oppose a government gone wrong.  Just what do you think the whole idea of this experiment is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And a government needs no permission to put down an armed rebellion
Click to expand...

Yes it does. There is a law and even Washington had to jump through the hoops regarding the Whiskey Rebellion and the law.


----------



## ding

rightwinger said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you are splitting hairs.  Same difference. Which is why we look at the statements that were made by the Founding Fathers.  But hey, I'm not trying to convince you.  You won't be happy until all guns are banned and confiscated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are no words in the Constitution relating to the rights of civilians to overthrow government.
> I'm not looking to ban or confiscate all guns. With 300 million out there, that is not going to happen
> 
> But I do believe those who stockpile guns and ammo for the day when they will take on the US Government are certifiable crazy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 2nd Amendment is intended to serve as a deterrent against a tyrannical government.  You want the police and military to be the only ones who have semi automatic rifles and high capacity magazines which makes no sense at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I trust trained police and military with automatic rifles and high capacity magazines more than some stupid fucking kid that nobody ever liked
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not up to you to decide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, it is
> 
> That is why I vote
Click to expand...

Go for it.

How Difficult Is It To Amendment the Constitution?


----------



## ding

rightwinger said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are no words in the Constitution relating to the rights of civilians to overthrow government.
> I'm not looking to ban or confiscate all guns. With 300 million out there, that is not going to happen
> 
> But I do believe those who stockpile guns and ammo for the day when they will take on the US Government are certifiable crazy
> 
> 
> 
> Correct.
> 
> The Second Amendment recognizes an individual right to possess a firearm, along with the right to self-defense.
> 
> There is no Second Amendment ‘right’ to ‘overthrow’ the government, the notion is as ridiculous as it is insane.
> 
> And the right to self-defense concerns protecting oneself from criminal attack by other private persons – attempted robbery, home invasion, rape, murder, etc. – not to ‘defend’ oneself from ‘the government’ incorrectly perceived to be ‘tyrannical.’
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *“No Free Man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.  The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”  *
> -*Thomas Jefferson*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those words never made it into the Constitution or into any law
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, but they explain the rationale behind the 2A.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they wanted those words, they would have put them in
> 
> As it is, The Constitution makes no provisions for overthrowing the government peacefully or with force
Click to expand...




frigidweirdo said:


> Shit post.



http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/2rbrelev.pdf


----------



## ding

frigidweirdo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I'm not talking bollocks again and I wasn't talking bollocks before.  Your end game is banning guns.  You don't care about the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Telling people what they think is talking bollocks. You can't even read what I write, let alone understand what I'm thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell me how you don't want to ban guns then.  Prove me wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is there any point? At no time during any conversation with you have you shown the slightest interest in debate. It's like talking with a brick wall that has buttons you press and automated answers come out.
> 
> No dude, I'm done with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The point would have been to prove me wrong.  Wasn't that a good enough reason to say you didn't want to ban guns if you really didn't want to ban guns.  The problem is that I nailed it.  You didn't have any other choice but to feign indignity and stomp off into the sunset.  It was exactly as I called it.  Checkmate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly the petty attitude I'd expect from someone whose posts are full of nonsense. Ignore list for you. I'm not dealing with such idiocy.
Click to expand...

And yet, you still have not proven me wrong that you want to ban guns.


----------



## rightwinger

ding said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are no words in the Constitution relating to the rights of civilians to overthrow government.
> I'm not looking to ban or confiscate all guns. With 300 million out there, that is not going to happen
> 
> But I do believe those who stockpile guns and ammo for the day when they will take on the US Government are certifiable crazy
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd Amendment is intended to serve as a deterrent against a tyrannical government.  You want the police and military to be the only ones who have semi automatic rifles and high capacity magazines which makes no sense at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I trust trained police and military with automatic rifles and high capacity magazines more than some stupid fucking kid that nobody ever liked
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not up to you to decide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, it is
> 
> That is why I vote
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Go for it.
> 
> How Difficult Is It To Amendment the Constitution?
Click to expand...


No need to amend it

We just need liberal courts to support reasonable gun controls


----------



## ding

rightwinger said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd Amendment is intended to serve as a deterrent against a tyrannical government.  You want the police and military to be the only ones who have semi automatic rifles and high capacity magazines which makes no sense at all.
> 
> 
> 
> I trust trained police and military with automatic rifles and high capacity magazines more than some stupid fucking kid that nobody ever liked
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not up to you to decide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, it is
> 
> That is why I vote
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Go for it.
> 
> How Difficult Is It To Amendment the Constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No need to amend it
> 
> We just need liberal courts to support reasonable gun controls
Click to expand...

Good luck with that.


----------



## Tennyson

rightwinger said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd Amendment is intended to serve as a deterrent against a tyrannical government.  You want the police and military to be the only ones who have semi automatic rifles and high capacity magazines which makes no sense at all.
> 
> 
> 
> I trust trained police and military with automatic rifles and high capacity magazines more than some stupid fucking kid that nobody ever liked
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not up to you to decide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, it is
> 
> That is why I vote
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Go for it.
> 
> How Difficult Is It To Amendment the Constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No need to amend it
> 
> We just need liberal courts to support reasonable gun controls
Click to expand...


How do you define a liberal courts vis-a-vis courts that follow the intent of the Constitution and where does the rule of law play into liberal courts?


----------



## rightwinger

ding said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I trust trained police and military with automatic rifles and high capacity magazines more than some stupid fucking kid that nobody ever liked
> 
> 
> 
> It's not up to you to decide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, it is
> 
> That is why I vote
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Go for it.
> 
> How Difficult Is It To Amendment the Constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No need to amend it
> 
> We just need liberal courts to support reasonable gun controls
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good luck with that.
Click to expand...


Thanks.....Find out tonight


----------



## Vandalshandle

Tennyson said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I trust trained police and military with automatic rifles and high capacity magazines more than some stupid fucking kid that nobody ever liked
> 
> 
> 
> It's not up to you to decide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, it is
> 
> That is why I vote
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Go for it.
> 
> How Difficult Is It To Amendment the Constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No need to amend it
> 
> We just need liberal courts to support reasonable gun controls
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you define a liberal courts vis-a-vis courts that follow the intent of the Constitution and where does the rule of law play into liberal courts?
Click to expand...


A liberal court is imaginary. A conservative court has at least one vacant seat.


----------



## ding

rightwinger said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not up to you to decide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it is
> 
> That is why I vote
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Go for it.
> 
> How Difficult Is It To Amendment the Constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No need to amend it
> 
> We just need liberal courts to support reasonable gun controls
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good luck with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks.....Find out tonight
Click to expand...

I think you are going to have to wait a little longer than that.


----------



## ding

rightwinger said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd Amendment is intended to serve as a deterrent against a tyrannical government.  You want the police and military to be the only ones who have semi automatic rifles and high capacity magazines which makes no sense at all.
> 
> 
> 
> I trust trained police and military with automatic rifles and high capacity magazines more than some stupid fucking kid that nobody ever liked
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not up to you to decide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, it is
> 
> That is why I vote
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Go for it.
> 
> How Difficult Is It To Amendment the Constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No need to amend it
> 
> We just need liberal courts to support reasonable gun controls
Click to expand...

What was that you were saying, lol?


----------



## Boss

emilynghiem said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought federalism was in support of a strong centralized govt and
> the antifederalist was in support of keeping power on the level of states and people,
> and not ceding this to federal authority. I thought the big fear of a central Constitution
> was it would not be strong enough to check that tendency for the greater collective
> power to start oppressing the local citizens and state sovereignty all over again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are sort of right and sort of confused at the same time. When we were debating Federalism vs. Anti-federalism, the arguments were BOTH opposed to a central federal power over everyone. Federalists argued that we could have a very limited small federal government which left most of our liberty to be determined by the states and people respectively. Anti-federalists feared exactly what has happened in history, that even a small federal government, limited in power, would eventually become a large centralized power enforcing it's will on society.
> 
> Today, we have a different argument. The Federalists are still arguing for a small and limited federal authority where states and people decide most of their own parameters of liberty and we have Statists who believe in a large central authority. Ironically, even though Anti-federalists no longer exist, their arguments proved to be true... we simply couldn't maintain a small limited government over time because the nature of any government is to grow in power over the individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So Boss now there are three groups
> 1. Statists are the ones who WANT the power to grow on the federal level and even fight against enforcing limits on it
> 2. Federalists who argue we can manage a centralized govt are split between the "new anti-federalists" who still believe in the Constitution but fear the whole thing needs to be shut down and stopped vs. the Constitutonalists saying we can use the given system and restore the limitations (and the Statists saying we can keep the given system and don't need to enforce limitations)
> 3. anarchists and independents who don't believe in parties or Constitutional laws at all as being able to stop abuses
> 
> I think the Statists have taken over the position of anti-federalists
> in being opposed to the Constitution as limited govt, but for the opposite reason.
> Before, the anti-federalists didn't think it was strong enough to PREVENT big govt from dominating over individuals.
> Today, the Statists don't want the Constitutional limits as "obstruction" to get in the way of this.
> 
> So the term you use for people who want central govt as the default authority
> in charge of public programs and policies is STATIST. Is that correct?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's  correct but they are not taking anything near an anti-federalist position. Their position is exactly what made an anti-federalist an anti-federalist. They were opposed to a central federal government, even in a small limited role. They sought to have us remain a confederation of states without a federal government. The Federalists made the case that a Constitution would limit and restrict the powers of Federal government and rejected the idea that it would grow out of control because they though the people would prevent it.
> 
> It's confusing today because many of the anti-federalist complaints have become the concerns of the modern federalists. Again, both Federalists and Anti-Federalists opposed a large centralized Federal government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can todays Feneralists and antifederalists rise up against the Statists? Why not demand the Statists set up their own programs and not impose through govt on others.
> 
> Which Party leaders would have to agree to such a resolution or demand to make it heard? Who do recommend, or what form of petition should the people present? Boss
Click to expand...


I think you see the true Federalists standing strong with Constitutional Conservatives. It's reflected in who we are electing to Congress. 

I don't understand your question with regard to the Statists... do you understand that a Statist seeks to use the power of government to impose it's programs and control on others? So your question is, why not demand Statists not be Statists?  I think that's a great idea.


----------



## emilynghiem

Boss said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought federalism was in support of a strong centralized govt and
> the antifederalist was in support of keeping power on the level of states and people,
> and not ceding this to federal authority. I thought the big fear of a central Constitution
> was it would not be strong enough to check that tendency for the greater collective
> power to start oppressing the local citizens and state sovereignty all over again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are sort of right and sort of confused at the same time. When we were debating Federalism vs. Anti-federalism, the arguments were BOTH opposed to a central federal power over everyone. Federalists argued that we could have a very limited small federal government which left most of our liberty to be determined by the states and people respectively. Anti-federalists feared exactly what has happened in history, that even a small federal government, limited in power, would eventually become a large centralized power enforcing it's will on society.
> 
> Today, we have a different argument. The Federalists are still arguing for a small and limited federal authority where states and people decide most of their own parameters of liberty and we have Statists who believe in a large central authority. Ironically, even though Anti-federalists no longer exist, their arguments proved to be true... we simply couldn't maintain a small limited government over time because the nature of any government is to grow in power over the individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So Boss now there are three groups
> 1. Statists are the ones who WANT the power to grow on the federal level and even fight against enforcing limits on it
> 2. Federalists who argue we can manage a centralized govt are split between the "new anti-federalists" who still believe in the Constitution but fear the whole thing needs to be shut down and stopped vs. the Constitutonalists saying we can use the given system and restore the limitations (and the Statists saying we can keep the given system and don't need to enforce limitations)
> 3. anarchists and independents who don't believe in parties or Constitutional laws at all as being able to stop abuses
> 
> I think the Statists have taken over the position of anti-federalists
> in being opposed to the Constitution as limited govt, but for the opposite reason.
> Before, the anti-federalists didn't think it was strong enough to PREVENT big govt from dominating over individuals.
> Today, the Statists don't want the Constitutional limits as "obstruction" to get in the way of this.
> 
> So the term you use for people who want central govt as the default authority
> in charge of public programs and policies is STATIST. Is that correct?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's  correct but they are not taking anything near an anti-federalist position. Their position is exactly what made an anti-federalist an anti-federalist. They were opposed to a central federal government, even in a small limited role. They sought to have us remain a confederation of states without a federal government. The Federalists made the case that a Constitution would limit and restrict the powers of Federal government and rejected the idea that it would grow out of control because they though the people would prevent it.
> 
> It's confusing today because many of the anti-federalist complaints have become the concerns of the modern federalists. Again, both Federalists and Anti-Federalists opposed a large centralized Federal government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can todays Feneralists and antifederalists rise up against the Statists? Why not demand the Statists set up their own programs and not impose through govt on others.
> 
> Which Party leaders would have to agree to such a resolution or demand to make it heard? Who do recommend, or what form of petition should the people present? Boss
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you see the true Federalists standing strong with Constitutional Conservatives. It's reflected in who we are electing to Congress.
> 
> I don't understand your question with regard to the Statists... do you understand that a Statist seeks to use the power of government to impose it's programs and control on others? So your question is, why not demand Statists not be Statists?  I think that's a great idea.
Click to expand...

Well Boss if we set it up right, they will still act as Statists for themselves within their own govt structure. Just not for anyone else who doesn't freely chose that affiliation. We can call it a model or internal govt run by Parliament of each party. Each party can claim sovereignty of their own realm over their own membership. So if health care or social benefits are set up to be self sustaining, it should work whether there are 1 million members or 10 million in the pool. Let them figure it out how to make the numbers and budget work on a smaller local scale, before expanding on a higher or national scale. So they can have collective will established for all members through central govt, but organize this by party so they can agree on political beliefs that otherwise divide states. With like minded members of one party belief, they can mandate all they want and it only applies to them who already agree on and believe in the same policies.


----------



## Boss

emilynghiem said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are sort of right and sort of confused at the same time. When we were debating Federalism vs. Anti-federalism, the arguments were BOTH opposed to a central federal power over everyone. Federalists argued that we could have a very limited small federal government which left most of our liberty to be determined by the states and people respectively. Anti-federalists feared exactly what has happened in history, that even a small federal government, limited in power, would eventually become a large centralized power enforcing it's will on society.
> 
> Today, we have a different argument. The Federalists are still arguing for a small and limited federal authority where states and people decide most of their own parameters of liberty and we have Statists who believe in a large central authority. Ironically, even though Anti-federalists no longer exist, their arguments proved to be true... we simply couldn't maintain a small limited government over time because the nature of any government is to grow in power over the individual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Boss now there are three groups
> 1. Statists are the ones who WANT the power to grow on the federal level and even fight against enforcing limits on it
> 2. Federalists who argue we can manage a centralized govt are split between the "new anti-federalists" who still believe in the Constitution but fear the whole thing needs to be shut down and stopped vs. the Constitutonalists saying we can use the given system and restore the limitations (and the Statists saying we can keep the given system and don't need to enforce limitations)
> 3. anarchists and independents who don't believe in parties or Constitutional laws at all as being able to stop abuses
> 
> I think the Statists have taken over the position of anti-federalists
> in being opposed to the Constitution as limited govt, but for the opposite reason.
> Before, the anti-federalists didn't think it was strong enough to PREVENT big govt from dominating over individuals.
> Today, the Statists don't want the Constitutional limits as "obstruction" to get in the way of this.
> 
> So the term you use for people who want central govt as the default authority
> in charge of public programs and policies is STATIST. Is that correct?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's  correct but they are not taking anything near an anti-federalist position. Their position is exactly what made an anti-federalist an anti-federalist. They were opposed to a central federal government, even in a small limited role. They sought to have us remain a confederation of states without a federal government. The Federalists made the case that a Constitution would limit and restrict the powers of Federal government and rejected the idea that it would grow out of control because they though the people would prevent it.
> 
> It's confusing today because many of the anti-federalist complaints have become the concerns of the modern federalists. Again, both Federalists and Anti-Federalists opposed a large centralized Federal government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can todays Feneralists and antifederalists rise up against the Statists? Why not demand the Statists set up their own programs and not impose through govt on others.
> 
> Which Party leaders would have to agree to such a resolution or demand to make it heard? Who do recommend, or what form of petition should the people present? Boss
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you see the true Federalists standing strong with Constitutional Conservatives. It's reflected in who we are electing to Congress.
> 
> I don't understand your question with regard to the Statists... do you understand that a Statist seeks to use the power of government to impose it's programs and control on others? So your question is, why not demand Statists not be Statists?  I think that's a great idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well Boss if we set it up right, they will still act as Statists for themselves within their own govt structure. Just not for anyone else who doesn't freely chose that affiliation. We can call it a model or internal govt run by Parliament of each party. Each party can claim sovereignty of their own realm over their own membership. So if health care or social benefits are set up to be self sustaining, it should work whether there are 1 million members or 10 million in the pool. Let them figure it out how to make the numbers and budget work on a smaller local scale, before expanding on a higher or national scale. So they can have collective will established for all members through central govt, but organize this by party so they can agree on political beliefs that otherwise divide states. With like minded members of one party belief, they can mandate all they want and it only applies to them who already agree on and believe in the same policies.
Click to expand...


emilynghiem we don't need to set anything up. We have a beautiful system that is unique and exceptional. Our framers didn't want us to be Statists and even the people who opposed the framers didn't want us to be Statists... but here you are, trying to somehow accommodate the Statists. A Statist is a Communist. Why would you want some cockamamie system that allows Communism? 

Much of what you are saying can be accomplished already through returning the power to the states as it was intended to be. If California wants to set up their little Socialist Utopia, they can do that... but don't expect the rest of us to bail you out when it all goes tits up.


----------



## emilynghiem

Boss said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Boss now there are three groups
> 1. Statists are the ones who WANT the power to grow on the federal level and even fight against enforcing limits on it
> 2. Federalists who argue we can manage a centralized govt are split between the "new anti-federalists" who still believe in the Constitution but fear the whole thing needs to be shut down and stopped vs. the Constitutonalists saying we can use the given system and restore the limitations (and the Statists saying we can keep the given system and don't need to enforce limitations)
> 3. anarchists and independents who don't believe in parties or Constitutional laws at all as being able to stop abuses
> 
> I think the Statists have taken over the position of anti-federalists
> in being opposed to the Constitution as limited govt, but for the opposite reason.
> Before, the anti-federalists didn't think it was strong enough to PREVENT big govt from dominating over individuals.
> Today, the Statists don't want the Constitutional limits as "obstruction" to get in the way of this.
> 
> So the term you use for people who want central govt as the default authority
> in charge of public programs and policies is STATIST. Is that correct?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's  correct but they are not taking anything near an anti-federalist position. Their position is exactly what made an anti-federalist an anti-federalist. They were opposed to a central federal government, even in a small limited role. They sought to have us remain a confederation of states without a federal government. The Federalists made the case that a Constitution would limit and restrict the powers of Federal government and rejected the idea that it would grow out of control because they though the people would prevent it.
> 
> It's confusing today because many of the anti-federalist complaints have become the concerns of the modern federalists. Again, both Federalists and Anti-Federalists opposed a large centralized Federal government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can todays Feneralists and antifederalists rise up against the Statists? Why not demand the Statists set up their own programs and not impose through govt on others.
> 
> Which Party leaders would have to agree to such a resolution or demand to make it heard? Who do recommend, or what form of petition should the people present? Boss
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you see the true Federalists standing strong with Constitutional Conservatives. It's reflected in who we are electing to Congress.
> 
> I don't understand your question with regard to the Statists... do you understand that a Statist seeks to use the power of government to impose it's programs and control on others? So your question is, why not demand Statists not be Statists?  I think that's a great idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well Boss if we set it up right, they will still act as Statists for themselves within their own govt structure. Just not for anyone else who doesn't freely chose that affiliation. We can call it a model or internal govt run by Parliament of each party. Each party can claim sovereignty of their own realm over their own membership. So if health care or social benefits are set up to be self sustaining, it should work whether there are 1 million members or 10 million in the pool. Let them figure it out how to make the numbers and budget work on a smaller local scale, before expanding on a higher or national scale. So they can have collective will established for all members through central govt, but organize this by party so they can agree on political beliefs that otherwise divide states. With like minded members of one party belief, they can mandate all they want and it only applies to them who already agree on and believe in the same policies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> emilynghiem we don't need to set anything up. We have a beautiful system that is unique and exceptional. Our framers didn't want us to be Statists and even the people who opposed the framers didn't want us to be Statists... but here you are, trying to somehow accommodate the Statists. A Statist is a Communist. Why would you want some cockamamie system that allows Communism?
> 
> Much of what you are saying can be accomplished already through returning the power to the states as it was intended to be. If California wants to set up their little Socialist Utopia, they can do that... but don't expect the rest of us to bail you out when it all goes tits up.
Click to expand...

Dear Boss Doesn't everyone deserve equal opportunity to set up their own state govt. to learn and teach by experience?
Why not set up 4-5 campus city-states along the border.  All the other candidates can govern their own followers like a state. Not interfere with others.


----------



## Tennyson

Boss said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Boss now there are three groups
> 1. Statists are the ones who WANT the power to grow on the federal level and even fight against enforcing limits on it
> 2. Federalists who argue we can manage a centralized govt are split between the "new anti-federalists" who still believe in the Constitution but fear the whole thing needs to be shut down and stopped vs. the Constitutonalists saying we can use the given system and restore the limitations (and the Statists saying we can keep the given system and don't need to enforce limitations)
> 3. anarchists and independents who don't believe in parties or Constitutional laws at all as being able to stop abuses
> 
> I think the Statists have taken over the position of anti-federalists
> in being opposed to the Constitution as limited govt, but for the opposite reason.
> Before, the anti-federalists didn't think it was strong enough to PREVENT big govt from dominating over individuals.
> Today, the Statists don't want the Constitutional limits as "obstruction" to get in the way of this.
> 
> So the term you use for people who want central govt as the default authority
> in charge of public programs and policies is STATIST. Is that correct?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's  correct but they are not taking anything near an anti-federalist position. Their position is exactly what made an anti-federalist an anti-federalist. They were opposed to a central federal government, even in a small limited role. They sought to have us remain a confederation of states without a federal government. The Federalists made the case that a Constitution would limit and restrict the powers of Federal government and rejected the idea that it would grow out of control because they though the people would prevent it.
> 
> It's confusing today because many of the anti-federalist complaints have become the concerns of the modern federalists. Again, both Federalists and Anti-Federalists opposed a large centralized Federal government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can todays Feneralists and antifederalists rise up against the Statists? Why not demand the Statists set up their own programs and not impose through govt on others.
> 
> Which Party leaders would have to agree to such a resolution or demand to make it heard? Who do recommend, or what form of petition should the people present? Boss
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you see the true Federalists standing strong with Constitutional Conservatives. It's reflected in who we are electing to Congress.
> 
> I don't understand your question with regard to the Statists... do you understand that a Statist seeks to use the power of government to impose it's programs and control on others? So your question is, why not demand Statists not be Statists?  I think that's a great idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well Boss if we set it up right, they will still act as Statists for themselves within their own govt structure. Just not for anyone else who doesn't freely chose that affiliation. We can call it a model or internal govt run by Parliament of each party. Each party can claim sovereignty of their own realm over their own membership. So if health care or social benefits are set up to be self sustaining, it should work whether there are 1 million members or 10 million in the pool. Let them figure it out how to make the numbers and budget work on a smaller local scale, before expanding on a higher or national scale. So they can have collective will established for all members through central govt, but organize this by party so they can agree on political beliefs that otherwise divide states. With like minded members of one party belief, they can mandate all they want and it only applies to them who already agree on and believe in the same policies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> emilynghiem we don't need to set anything up. We have a beautiful system that is unique and exceptional. Our framers didn't want us to be Statists and even the people who opposed the framers didn't want us to be Statists... but here you are, trying to somehow accommodate the Statists. A Statist is a Communist. Why would you want some cockamamie system that allows Communism?
> 
> Much of what you are saying can be accomplished already through returning the power to the states as it was intended to be. If California wants to set up their little Socialist Utopia, they can do that... but don't expect the rest of us to bail you out when it all goes tits up.
Click to expand...




emilynghiem said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's  correct but they are not taking anything near an anti-federalist position. Their position is exactly what made an anti-federalist an anti-federalist. They were opposed to a central federal government, even in a small limited role. They sought to have us remain a confederation of states without a federal government. The Federalists made the case that a Constitution would limit and restrict the powers of Federal government and rejected the idea that it would grow out of control because they though the people would prevent it.
> 
> It's confusing today because many of the anti-federalist complaints have become the concerns of the modern federalists. Again, both Federalists and Anti-Federalists opposed a large centralized Federal government.
> 
> 
> 
> Can todays Feneralists and antifederalists rise up against the Statists? Why not demand the Statists set up their own programs and not impose through govt on others.
> 
> Which Party leaders would have to agree to such a resolution or demand to make it heard? Who do recommend, or what form of petition should the people present? Boss
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you see the true Federalists standing strong with Constitutional Conservatives. It's reflected in who we are electing to Congress.
> 
> I don't understand your question with regard to the Statists... do you understand that a Statist seeks to use the power of government to impose it's programs and control on others? So your question is, why not demand Statists not be Statists?  I think that's a great idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well Boss if we set it up right, they will still act as Statists for themselves within their own govt structure. Just not for anyone else who doesn't freely chose that affiliation. We can call it a model or internal govt run by Parliament of each party. Each party can claim sovereignty of their own realm over their own membership. So if health care or social benefits are set up to be self sustaining, it should work whether there are 1 million members or 10 million in the pool. Let them figure it out how to make the numbers and budget work on a smaller local scale, before expanding on a higher or national scale. So they can have collective will established for all members through central govt, but organize this by party so they can agree on political beliefs that otherwise divide states. With like minded members of one party belief, they can mandate all they want and it only applies to them who already agree on and believe in the same policies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> emilynghiem we don't need to set anything up. We have a beautiful system that is unique and exceptional. Our framers didn't want us to be Statists and even the people who opposed the framers didn't want us to be Statists... but here you are, trying to somehow accommodate the Statists. A Statist is a Communist. Why would you want some cockamamie system that allows Communism?
> 
> Much of what you are saying can be accomplished already through returning the power to the states as it was intended to be. If California wants to set up their little Socialist Utopia, they can do that... but don't expect the rest of us to bail you out when it all goes tits up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Boss Doesn't everyone deserve equal opportunity to set up their own state govt. to learn and teach by experience?
> Why not set up 4-5 campus city-states along the border.  All the other candidates can govern their own followers like a state. Not interfere with others.
Click to expand...


Article IV would prevent that from happening.


----------



## Boss

emilynghiem said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's  correct but they are not taking anything near an anti-federalist position. Their position is exactly what made an anti-federalist an anti-federalist. They were opposed to a central federal government, even in a small limited role. They sought to have us remain a confederation of states without a federal government. The Federalists made the case that a Constitution would limit and restrict the powers of Federal government and rejected the idea that it would grow out of control because they though the people would prevent it.
> 
> It's confusing today because many of the anti-federalist complaints have become the concerns of the modern federalists. Again, both Federalists and Anti-Federalists opposed a large centralized Federal government.
> 
> 
> 
> Can todays Feneralists and antifederalists rise up against the Statists? Why not demand the Statists set up their own programs and not impose through govt on others.
> 
> Which Party leaders would have to agree to such a resolution or demand to make it heard? Who do recommend, or what form of petition should the people present? Boss
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you see the true Federalists standing strong with Constitutional Conservatives. It's reflected in who we are electing to Congress.
> 
> I don't understand your question with regard to the Statists... do you understand that a Statist seeks to use the power of government to impose it's programs and control on others? So your question is, why not demand Statists not be Statists?  I think that's a great idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well Boss if we set it up right, they will still act as Statists for themselves within their own govt structure. Just not for anyone else who doesn't freely chose that affiliation. We can call it a model or internal govt run by Parliament of each party. Each party can claim sovereignty of their own realm over their own membership. So if health care or social benefits are set up to be self sustaining, it should work whether there are 1 million members or 10 million in the pool. Let them figure it out how to make the numbers and budget work on a smaller local scale, before expanding on a higher or national scale. So they can have collective will established for all members through central govt, but organize this by party so they can agree on political beliefs that otherwise divide states. With like minded members of one party belief, they can mandate all they want and it only applies to them who already agree on and believe in the same policies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> emilynghiem we don't need to set anything up. We have a beautiful system that is unique and exceptional. Our framers didn't want us to be Statists and even the people who opposed the framers didn't want us to be Statists... but here you are, trying to somehow accommodate the Statists. A Statist is a Communist. Why would you want some cockamamie system that allows Communism?
> 
> Much of what you are saying can be accomplished already through returning the power to the states as it was intended to be. If California wants to set up their little Socialist Utopia, they can do that... but don't expect the rest of us to bail you out when it all goes tits up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Boss Doesn't everyone deserve equal opportunity to set up their own state govt. to learn and teach by experience?
> Why not set up 4-5 campus city-states along the border.  All the other candidates can govern their own followers like a state. Not interfere with others.
Click to expand...


First and foremost, as Tennyson said, it would be unconstitutional. Second, I have no desire whatsoever to participate in such an experiment. I like the system we have now but I would like the power to be returned to the states as our founders intended for it to be. Now, you're a Big Compromise gal... why can't each state decide if it wants to be a "socialist" state within the United States? I have no problem with that under the condition there will be no Federal bailouts... if your socialist state fails, that's your bag of donuts. Your state will either have to get bailed out by one of it's neighbors, annexed or carved up among several neighboring states.


----------



## emilynghiem

emilynghiem said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's  correct but they are not taking anything near an anti-federalist position. Their position is exactly what made an anti-federalist an anti-federalist. They were opposed to a central federal government, even in a small limited role. They sought to have us remain a confederation of states without a federal government. The Federalists made the case that a Constitution would limit and restrict the powers of Federal government and rejected the idea that it would grow out of control because they though the people would prevent it.
> 
> It's confusing today because many of the anti-federalist complaints have become the concerns of the modern federalists. Again, both Federalists and Anti-Federalists opposed a large centralized Federal government.
> 
> 
> 
> Can todays Feneralists and antifederalists rise up against the Statists? Why not demand the Statists set up their own programs and not impose through govt on others.
> 
> Which Party leaders would have to agree to such a resolution or demand to make it heard? Who do recommend, or what form of petition should the people present? Boss
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you see the true Federalists standing strong with Constitutional Conservatives. It's reflected in who we are electing to Congress.
> 
> I don't understand your question with regard to the Statists... do you understand that a Statist seeks to use the power of government to impose it's programs and control on others? So your question is, why not demand Statists not be Statists?  I think that's a great idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well Boss if we set it up right, they will still act as Statists for themselves within their own govt structure. Just not for anyone else who doesn't freely chose that affiliation. We can call it a model or internal govt run by Parliament of each party. Each party can claim sovereignty of their own realm over their own membership. So if health care or social benefits are set up to be self sustaining, it should work whether there are 1 million members or 10 million in the pool. Let them figure it out how to make the numbers and budget work on a smaller local scale, before expanding on a higher or national scale. So they can have collective will established for all members through central govt, but organize this by party so they can agree on political beliefs that otherwise divide states. With like minded members of one party belief, they can mandate all they want and it only applies to them who already agree on and believe in the same policies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> emilynghiem we don't need to set anything up. We have a beautiful system that is unique and exceptional. Our framers didn't want us to be Statists and even the people who opposed the framers didn't want us to be Statists... but here you are, trying to somehow accommodate the Statists. A Statist is a Communist. Why would you want some cockamamie system that allows Communism?
> 
> Much of what you are saying can be accomplished already through returning the power to the states as it was intended to be. If California wants to set up their little Socialist Utopia, they can do that... but don't expect the rest of us to bail you out when it all goes tits up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Boss Doesn't everyone deserve equal opportunity to set up their own state govt. to learn and teach by experience?
> Why not set up 4-5 campus city-states along the border.  All the other candidates can govern their own followers like a state. Not interfere with others.
Click to expand...


Dear Boss and TheProgressivePatriot
You both asked me similar questions and I would like to hear your answers and insights.

Boss asks why include Statists who believe in imposing federal rulings by judicial authority
instead of going through legislative process by States.

TPP asked why would I insist on including "Bigots" (if all they do is enforce
discrimination and obstruction/exclusion and not equal recognition.)

Can you se e that both sides would push to EXCLUDE the people with beliefs they disagree with.

So HOW can we INCLUDE representation of these PEOPLE
WITHOUT enabling the imposition of either their Statist or Bigot beliefs on others?

Is it working to depend on majority rule (manipulated by media and party
and corporate interests operating outside the Constitutional govt)
to shut each other out when either side goes too far?

Is there some way to set up a system that allows
INPUT and CONTENT of objections by these people of these beliefs,
but doesn't allow IMPOSITION through govt at the expense of other beliefs?

That's why I was pushing for a consensus model of inclusion.
But is there a better way to stop this ABUSE???

the SAME problem happens with Greens when using consensus based representation
and decision making.

the OBSTRUCTIONISTS who vote no/objection aren't required to resolve
the issue causing it, so it stalls and deadlocks or shuts down the process.

How do we prevent this clashing from shutting down Congress
or turning elections into YES/NO wars for one belief over the other?

or is that REALLY the only way to change this?
To outvote the other BELIEFS to cut them OUT of the process, really?

We can't have inclusion because they will ABUSE it, really?

I'm asking you both, because if you BOTH got your way,
TPP would veto anyone considered a BIGOT
and Boss would overrule anyone considered a STATIST.

is that what we need?
what do we do to improve or correct this?
what do you suggest for dealing with
Statists and Bigots who don't get equal inclusion
and don't respect the beliefs of others they trample?


----------



## Boss

I don't know  if I even comprehend what you're asking me emily. I don't give two rips about the beliefs, opinions, arguments or concerns of statists or bigots. We can't have any objective targeted toward "equal inclusion" because we have 350 million individuals. What we have is a system of constitutional republicanism. It's a brilliant system which allows maximum individual liberty and protection of individual liberty but with the capability of self-governance that serves the needs of most. 

If you belong to the group of statists, bigots, anarchists, Christians, trannies... whatever... you have equal opportunity to petition for redress of your grievances. We call that thing, Freedom of Speech. So we already have the perfect system... it doesn't need fixing.


----------



## Deleted member 61768

We the people are the last keepers of our own rights and freedoms against all who may try to abrogate or take them away.


----------



## emilynghiem

Boss said:


> I don't know  if I even comprehend what you're asking me emily. I don't give two rips about the beliefs, opinions, arguments or concerns of statists or bigots. We can't have any objective targeted toward "equal inclusion" because we have 350 million individuals. What we have is a system of constitutional republicanism. It's a brilliant system which allows maximum individual liberty and protection of individual liberty but with the capability of self-governance that serves the needs of most.
> 
> If you belong to the group of statists, bigots, anarchists, Christians, trannies... whatever... you have equal opportunity to petition for redress of your grievances. We call that thing, Freedom of Speech. So we already have the perfect system... it doesn't need fixing.



Dear Boss don't you think the given system can be IMPROVED
by teaching/agreeing that ANY and ALL beliefs (such as LGBT beliefs
in same sex marriage or right to life/health care beliefs) count as part
of religious freedom, and govt should neither PROHIBIT nor ESTABLISH them?


----------



## danielpalos

ding said:


> The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.
> 
> "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> "_f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
> 
> - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.
> 
> "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"
> 
> Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"
> 
> The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.
> 
> "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
> 
> "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
> 
> "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it._


Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States.  It is in Article 1, Section 8.


----------



## ding

danielpalos said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.
> 
> "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> "_f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
> 
> - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.
> 
> "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"
> 
> Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"
> 
> The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.
> 
> "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
> 
> "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
> 
> "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it._
> 
> 
> 
> Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States.  It is in Article 1, Section 8.
Click to expand...

_Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it._


----------



## Spare_change

ding said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.
> 
> "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> "_f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
> 
> - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.
> 
> "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"
> 
> Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"
> 
> The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.
> 
> "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
> 
> "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
> 
> "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it._
> 
> 
> 
> Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States.  It is in Article 1, Section 8.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it._
Click to expand...


OMG!!!

You exceed the left's capacity for logic wayyy too much!!! Daniel's head probably exploded. We'll never hear from him again --- or he will be exceedingly brain damaged.

The real question is: Will we notice?


----------



## Boss

emilynghiem said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know  if I even comprehend what you're asking me emily. I don't give two rips about the beliefs, opinions, arguments or concerns of statists or bigots. We can't have any objective targeted toward "equal inclusion" because we have 350 million individuals. What we have is a system of constitutional republicanism. It's a brilliant system which allows maximum individual liberty and protection of individual liberty but with the capability of self-governance that serves the needs of most.
> 
> If you belong to the group of statists, bigots, anarchists, Christians, trannies... whatever... you have equal opportunity to petition for redress of your grievances. We call that thing, Freedom of Speech. So we already have the perfect system... it doesn't need fixing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Boss don't you think the given system can be IMPROVED
> by teaching/agreeing that ANY and ALL beliefs (such as LGBT beliefs
> in same sex marriage or right to life/health care beliefs) count as part
> of religious freedom, and govt should neither PROHIBIT nor ESTABLISH them?
Click to expand...


The idea behind our form of government is to ensure as much individual freedom as possible. Federal government was given very limited power to do essential things and nothing more. States were given power within the constructs of a constitution. The People were given the most power. Ultimately, the most individual liberty comes from the individual themselves. Next comes the household... then the community, township, county... eventually the state. The state and the people are left to determine their own boundaries and regulations governing their social societies because this ensures the maximum individual liberty.


----------



## Spare_change

Boss said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know  if I even comprehend what you're asking me emily. I don't give two rips about the beliefs, opinions, arguments or concerns of statists or bigots. We can't have any objective targeted toward "equal inclusion" because we have 350 million individuals. What we have is a system of constitutional republicanism. It's a brilliant system which allows maximum individual liberty and protection of individual liberty but with the capability of self-governance that serves the needs of most.
> 
> If you belong to the group of statists, bigots, anarchists, Christians, trannies... whatever... you have equal opportunity to petition for redress of your grievances. We call that thing, Freedom of Speech. So we already have the perfect system... it doesn't need fixing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Boss don't you think the given system can be IMPROVED
> by teaching/agreeing that ANY and ALL beliefs (such as LGBT beliefs
> in same sex marriage or right to life/health care beliefs) count as part
> of religious freedom, and govt should neither PROHIBIT nor ESTABLISH them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The idea behind our form of government is to ensure as much individual freedom as possible. Federal government was given very limited power to do essential things and nothing more. States were given power within the constructs of a constitution. The People were given the most power. Ultimately, the most individual liberty comes from the individual themselves. Next comes the household... then the community, township, county... eventually the state. The state and the people are left to determine their own boundaries and regulations governing their social societies because this ensures the maximum individual liberty.
Click to expand...


Theoretically .... Dems killed it long ago.


----------



## danielpalos

ding said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.
> 
> "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> "_f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
> 
> - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.
> 
> "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"
> 
> Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"
> 
> The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.
> 
> "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
> 
> "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
> 
> "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it._
> 
> 
> 
> Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States.  It is in Article 1, Section 8.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it._
Click to expand...

Yes, it does.  To claim otherwise is to appeal to ignorance of the law.  Wellness of Regulation Must be Prescribed by our federal Congress, for the Militia of the United States.


----------



## danielpalos

Spare_change said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.
> 
> "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> "_f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
> 
> - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.
> 
> "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"
> 
> Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"
> 
> The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.
> 
> "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
> 
> "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
> 
> "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it._
> 
> 
> 
> Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States.  It is in Article 1, Section 8.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG!!!
> 
> You exceed the left's capacity for logic wayyy too much!!! Daniel's head probably exploded. We'll never hear from him again --- or he will be exceedingly brain damaged.
> 
> The real question is: Will we notice?
Click to expand...

all the right wing knows how to do, is appeal to ignorance of the law and blame less fortunate illegals, for being illegal.


----------



## Skull Pilot

danielpalos said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.
> 
> "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> "_f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
> 
> - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.
> 
> "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"
> 
> Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"
> 
> The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.
> 
> "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
> 
> "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
> 
> "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it._
> 
> 
> 
> Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States.  It is in Article 1, Section 8.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG!!!
> 
> You exceed the left's capacity for logic wayyy too much!!! Daniel's head probably exploded. We'll never hear from him again --- or he will be exceedingly brain damaged.
> 
> The real question is: Will we notice?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all the right wing knows how to do, is appeal to ignorance of the law and blame less fortunate illegals, for being illegal.
Click to expand...

tell me who do you blame if a criminal commits a crime?


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.
> 
> "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> "_f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
> 
> - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.
> 
> "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"
> 
> Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"
> 
> The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.
> 
> "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
> 
> "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
> 
> "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it._
> 
> 
> 
> Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States.  It is in Article 1, Section 8.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG!!!
> 
> You exceed the left's capacity for logic wayyy too much!!! Daniel's head probably exploded. We'll never hear from him again --- or he will be exceedingly brain damaged.
> 
> The real question is: Will we notice?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all the right wing knows how to do, is appeal to ignorance of the law and blame less fortunate illegals, for being illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> tell me who do you blame if a criminal commits a crime?
Click to expand...

10USC311 is federal law; DC v Heller is a simple error in judicial judgment.  who should we blame?


----------



## Skull Pilot

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States.  It is in Article 1, Section 8.
> 
> 
> 
> _Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG!!!
> 
> You exceed the left's capacity for logic wayyy too much!!! Daniel's head probably exploded. We'll never hear from him again --- or he will be exceedingly brain damaged.
> 
> The real question is: Will we notice?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all the right wing knows how to do, is appeal to ignorance of the law and blame less fortunate illegals, for being illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> tell me who do you blame if a criminal commits a crime?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 10USC311 is federal law; DC v Heller is a simple error in judicial judgment.  who should we blame?
Click to expand...

Heller has nothing to do with the question I asked you

an illegal alien is a criminal and you seem to think we shouldn't blame them for being criminals so who do you blame if  criminal commits a crime?


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OMG!!!
> 
> You exceed the left's capacity for logic wayyy too much!!! Daniel's head probably exploded. We'll never hear from him again --- or he will be exceedingly brain damaged.
> 
> The real question is: Will we notice?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all the right wing knows how to do, is appeal to ignorance of the law and blame less fortunate illegals, for being illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> tell me who do you blame if a criminal commits a crime?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 10USC311 is federal law; DC v Heller is a simple error in judicial judgment.  who should we blame?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Heller has nothing to do with the question I asked you
> 
> an illegal alien is a criminal and you seem to think we shouldn't blame them for being criminals so who do you blame if  criminal commits a crime?
Click to expand...

yes, it does; unless you only believe in pander and not the law.


----------



## ding

danielpalos said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.
> 
> "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> "_f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
> 
> - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.
> 
> "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"
> 
> Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"
> 
> The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.
> 
> "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
> 
> "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
> 
> "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it._
> 
> 
> 
> Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States.  It is in Article 1, Section 8.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it does.  To claim otherwise is to appeal to ignorance of the law.  Wellness of Regulation Must be Prescribed by our federal Congress, for the Militia of the United States.
Click to expand...

I'm happy enough to let others decide who has made the more compelling argument.


----------



## danielpalos

ding said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.
> 
> "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> "_f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
> 
> - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.
> 
> "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"
> 
> Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"
> 
> The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.
> 
> "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
> 
> "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
> 
> "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it._
> 
> 
> 
> Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States.  It is in Article 1, Section 8.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it does.  To claim otherwise is to appeal to ignorance of the law.  Wellness of Regulation Must be Prescribed by our federal Congress, for the Militia of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm happy enough to let others decide who has made the more compelling argument.
Click to expand...

lol.  nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law.

there is no appeal to ignorance of the law, unlike on these political forums.


----------



## Spare_change

danielpalos said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.
> 
> "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> "_f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
> 
> - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.
> 
> "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"
> 
> Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"
> 
> The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.
> 
> "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
> 
> "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
> 
> "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it._
> 
> 
> 
> Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States.  It is in Article 1, Section 8.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG!!!
> 
> You exceed the left's capacity for logic wayyy too much!!! Daniel's head probably exploded. We'll never hear from him again --- or he will be exceedingly brain damaged.
> 
> The real question is: Will we notice?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all the right wing knows how to do, is appeal to ignorance of the law and blame less fortunate illegals, for being illegal.
Click to expand...


You are what you are ... you can only strive to be what you dream to be.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Spare_change said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.
> 
> "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> "_f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
> 
> - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.
> 
> "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"
> 
> Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"
> 
> The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.
> 
> "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
> 
> "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
> 
> "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it._
> 
> 
> 
> Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States.  It is in Article 1, Section 8.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG!!!
> 
> You exceed the left's capacity for logic wayyy too much!!! Daniel's head probably exploded. We'll never hear from him again --- or he will be exceedingly brain damaged.
> 
> The real question is: Will we notice?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all the right wing knows how to do, is appeal to ignorance of the law and blame less fortunate illegals, for being illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are what you are ... you can only strive to be what you dream to be.
Click to expand...

which in his case is an unemployed still living with Mommy lazy fuck who wants to get paid 30K a year for jerking off


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States.  It is in Article 1, Section 8.
> 
> 
> 
> _Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG!!!
> 
> You exceed the left's capacity for logic wayyy too much!!! Daniel's head probably exploded. We'll never hear from him again --- or he will be exceedingly brain damaged.
> 
> The real question is: Will we notice?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all the right wing knows how to do, is appeal to ignorance of the law and blame less fortunate illegals, for being illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are what you are ... you can only strive to be what you dream to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> which in his case is an unemployed still living with Mommy lazy fuck who wants to get paid 30K a year for jerking off
Click to expand...

i prefer to be social enough to not be a crony capitalist.


----------



## Spare_change

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OMG!!!
> 
> You exceed the left's capacity for logic wayyy too much!!! Daniel's head probably exploded. We'll never hear from him again --- or he will be exceedingly brain damaged.
> 
> The real question is: Will we notice?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all the right wing knows how to do, is appeal to ignorance of the law and blame less fortunate illegals, for being illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are what you are ... you can only strive to be what you dream to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> which in his case is an unemployed still living with Mommy lazy fuck who wants to get paid 30K a year for jerking off
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i prefer to be social enough to not be a crony capitalist.
Click to expand...


Got rejected, huh? How's that job at the 7-11?


----------



## Skull Pilot

Spare_change said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> OMG!!!
> 
> You exceed the left's capacity for logic wayyy too much!!! Daniel's head probably exploded. We'll never hear from him again --- or he will be exceedingly brain damaged.
> 
> The real question is: Will we notice?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> all the right wing knows how to do, is appeal to ignorance of the law and blame less fortunate illegals, for being illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are what you are ... you can only strive to be what you dream to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> which in his case is an unemployed still living with Mommy lazy fuck who wants to get paid 30K a year for jerking off
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i prefer to be social enough to not be a crony capitalist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Got rejected, huh? How's that job at the 7-11?
Click to expand...

he doesn't have a job Mama still supports him


----------



## Spare_change

Skull Pilot said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> all the right wing knows how to do, is appeal to ignorance of the law and blame less fortunate illegals, for being illegal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are what you are ... you can only strive to be what you dream to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> which in his case is an unemployed still living with Mommy lazy fuck who wants to get paid 30K a year for jerking off
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i prefer to be social enough to not be a crony capitalist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Got rejected, huh? How's that job at the 7-11?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> he doesn't have a job Mama still supports him
Click to expand...


She pays for the lights in the basement, and the 14 cases of Twinkies, then?


----------



## Skull Pilot

Spare_change said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are what you are ... you can only strive to be what you dream to be.
> 
> 
> 
> which in his case is an unemployed still living with Mommy lazy fuck who wants to get paid 30K a year for jerking off
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i prefer to be social enough to not be a crony capitalist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Got rejected, huh? How's that job at the 7-11?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> he doesn't have a job Mama still supports him
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She pays for the lights in the basement, and the 14 cases of Twinkies, then?
Click to expand...

and the Resolve to clean up the stains on the couch


----------



## Chuz Life

ding said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.
> 
> "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> "_f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
> 
> - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.
> 
> "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"
> 
> Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"
> 
> The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.
> 
> "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
> 
> "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
> 
> "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it._
> 
> 
> 
> Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States.  It is in Article 1, Section 8.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it._
Click to expand...

Winner!

Show me an intellectually honest liberal and I will show you a Conservative  in the making.


----------



## danielpalos

10USC311 is federal law, right wingers; when are y'all going to, "get legal" to federal law?


----------



## Chuz Life

danielpalos said:


> 10USC311 is federal law, right wingers; when are y'all going to, "get legal" to federal law?


How are any right wingers not legal on this?

Show me an intellectually honest liberal and I will show you a Conservative  in the making.


----------



## danielpalos

Chuz Life said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 10USC311 is federal law, right wingers; when are y'all going to, "get legal" to federal law?
> 
> 
> 
> How are any right wingers not legal on this?
> 
> Show me an intellectually honest liberal and I will show you a Conservative  in the making.
Click to expand...

We have security problems in our free States.



> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.


----------



## Chuz Life

danielpalos said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 10USC311 is federal law, right wingers; when are y'all going to, "get legal" to federal law?
> 
> 
> 
> How are any right wingers not legal on this?
> 
> Show me an intellectually honest liberal and I will show you a Conservative  in the making.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have security problems in our free States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Still not illegal. 

Show me an intellectually honest liberal and I will show you a Conservative  in the making.


----------



## danielpalos

Chuz Life said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 10USC311 is federal law, right wingers; when are y'all going to, "get legal" to federal law?
> 
> 
> 
> How are any right wingers not legal on this?
> 
> Show me an intellectually honest liberal and I will show you a Conservative  in the making.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have security problems in our free States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still not illegal.
> 
> Show me an intellectually honest liberal and I will show you a Conservative  in the making.
Click to expand...

negligence?

Why is there any security problem in our free States.


----------



## Chuz Life

danielpalos said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 10USC311 is federal law, right wingers; when are y'all going to, "get legal" to federal law?
> 
> 
> 
> How are any right wingers not legal on this?
> 
> Show me an intellectually honest liberal and I will show you a Conservative  in the making.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have security problems in our free States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still not illegal.
> 
> Show me an intellectually honest liberal and I will show you a Conservative  in the making.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> negligence?
> 
> Why is there any security problem in our free States.
Click to expand...

You haven't provided any evidence that there is such a security problem that is in any way beyond our capacity for dealing with. 

Show me an intellectually honest liberal and I will show you a Conservative  in the making.


----------



## danielpalos

Chuz Life said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 10USC311 is federal law, right wingers; when are y'all going to, "get legal" to federal law?
> 
> 
> 
> How are any right wingers not legal on this?
> 
> Show me an intellectually honest liberal and I will show you a Conservative  in the making.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have security problems in our free States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still not illegal.
> 
> Show me an intellectually honest liberal and I will show you a Conservative  in the making.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> negligence?
> 
> Why is there any security problem in our free States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You haven't provided any evidence that there is such a security problem that is in any way beyond our capacity for dealing with.
> 
> Show me an intellectually honest liberal and I will show you a Conservative  in the making.
Click to expand...

Why do we have the expense and cost, of alleged, wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror?

We don't need an income tax, with our Second Amendment.


----------



## Chuz Life

danielpalos said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> How are any right wingers not legal on this?
> 
> Show me an intellectually honest liberal and I will show you a Conservative  in the making.
> 
> 
> 
> We have security problems in our free States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still not illegal.
> 
> Show me an intellectually honest liberal and I will show you a Conservative  in the making.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> negligence?
> 
> Why is there any security problem in our free States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You haven't provided any evidence that there is such a security problem that is in any way beyond our capacity for dealing with.
> 
> Show me an intellectually honest liberal and I will show you a Conservative  in the making.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do we have the expense and cost, of alleged, wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror?
> 
> We don't need an income tax, with our Second Amendment.
Click to expand...

Why do you speak only in riddles and platitudes?

Show me an intellectually honest liberal and I will show you a Conservative  in the making.


----------



## danielpalos

Chuz Life said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have security problems in our free States.
> 
> 
> 
> Still not illegal.
> 
> Show me an intellectually honest liberal and I will show you a Conservative  in the making.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> negligence?
> 
> Why is there any security problem in our free States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You haven't provided any evidence that there is such a security problem that is in any way beyond our capacity for dealing with.
> 
> Show me an intellectually honest liberal and I will show you a Conservative  in the making.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do we have the expense and cost, of alleged, wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror?
> 
> We don't need an income tax, with our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you speak only in riddles and platitudes?
> 
> Show me an intellectually honest liberal and I will show you a Conservative  in the making.
Click to expand...

We don't need an income tax, with our Second Amendment.

An income tax is necessary for real times of war.


----------



## Chuz Life

danielpalos said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still not illegal.
> 
> Show me an intellectually honest liberal and I will show you a Conservative  in the making.
> 
> 
> 
> negligence?
> 
> Why is there any security problem in our free States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You haven't provided any evidence that there is such a security problem that is in any way beyond our capacity for dealing with.
> 
> Show me an intellectually honest liberal and I will show you a Conservative  in the making.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do we have the expense and cost, of alleged, wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror?
> 
> We don't need an income tax, with our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you speak only in riddles and platitudes?
> 
> Show me an intellectually honest liberal and I will show you a Conservative  in the making.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't need an income tax, with our Second Amendment.
> 
> An income tax is necessary for real times of war.
Click to expand...

So don't pay any.  

They ARE voluntary, you know. 

Show me an intellectually honest liberal and I will show you a Conservative  in the making.


----------



## danielpalos

Chuz Life said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> negligence?
> 
> Why is there any security problem in our free States.
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't provided any evidence that there is such a security problem that is in any way beyond our capacity for dealing with.
> 
> Show me an intellectually honest liberal and I will show you a Conservative  in the making.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do we have the expense and cost, of alleged, wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror?
> 
> We don't need an income tax, with our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you speak only in riddles and platitudes?
> 
> Show me an intellectually honest liberal and I will show you a Conservative  in the making.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't need an income tax, with our Second Amendment.
> 
> An income tax is necessary for real times of war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So don't pay any.
> 
> They ARE voluntary, you know.
> 
> Show me an intellectually honest liberal and I will show you a Conservative  in the making.
Click to expand...

We have a Second Amendment; there is no need for "wartime" powers.


----------



## Chuz Life

danielpalos said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't provided any evidence that there is such a security problem that is in any way beyond our capacity for dealing with.
> 
> Show me an intellectually honest liberal and I will show you a Conservative  in the making.
> 
> 
> 
> Why do we have the expense and cost, of alleged, wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror?
> 
> We don't need an income tax, with our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you speak only in riddles and platitudes?
> 
> Show me an intellectually honest liberal and I will show you a Conservative  in the making.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't need an income tax, with our Second Amendment.
> 
> An income tax is necessary for real times of war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So don't pay any.
> 
> They ARE voluntary, you know.
> 
> Show me an intellectually honest liberal and I will show you a Conservative  in the making.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have a Second Amendment; there is no need for "wartime" powers.
Click to expand...

Preach it brutha! 

LOL

Show me an intellectually honest liberal and I will show you a Conservative  in the making.


----------



## yiostheoy

Boss said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.
> 
> "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> "_f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
> 
> - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.
> 
> "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"
> 
> Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"
> 
> The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.
> 
> "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
> 
> "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
> 
> "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly the right to bear arms doesn't give you an armed populace. That's the right to keep arms. The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia.
> 
> i.e., the militia with citizen soldiers, that means you need people with the guns for the militia, and you need people to use the guns in the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The OP specifically posted relevant portions of the Federalist Papers explaining to you what the 2nd Amendment means. You simply ignored that and applied your own left-wing interpretation. You're just fucking wrong.
Click to expand...

All of you all (the plural of you all) need to read Scalia's write-up on Heller.

This will tell you what 8 of the current SCOTUS justice believe is the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment in 21st Century terms.

Meanwhile both of you is just pissing into the wind, however the O/P is correct.  Scalia explained that the States retain the right to regulate public carry, whether concealed or open according to the 10th Amendment.


----------



## yiostheoy

Paparock said:


> We the people are the last keepers of our own rights and freedoms against all who may try to abrogate or take them away.


So why did you resurrect this old dead tired thread?

You did not even say/type anything significant either.


----------



## Boss

yiostheoy said:


> This will tell you what 8 of the current SCOTUS justice believe is the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment in 21st Century terms.




Heller was simply about whether the 2nd applied to federal enclaves. There is no "interpretation" needed for the 2nd it is a natural right.


----------



## danielpalos

ding said:


> The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.
> 
> "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> "_f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
> 
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
> 
> The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
> 
> - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.
> 
> "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"
> 
> Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"
> 
> The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.
> 
> "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
> 
> "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
> 
> "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
> 
> Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it._


the first clause of our Second Amendment, is the Intent and Purpose.  It, is the supreme law of the land, not your right wing propaganda and rhetoric.


----------



## Boss

danielpalos said:


> the first clause of our Second Amendment, is the Intent and Purpose. It, is the supreme law of the land, not your right wing propaganda and rhetoric.



Yes... Because man sometimes needs to form militias in order to defend life, liberty and property, the right for men to bear arms is a natural law, endowed by our Creator and inalienable... not to be infringed.


----------



## danielpalos

Boss said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> the first clause of our Second Amendment, is the Intent and Purpose. It, is the supreme law of the land, not your right wing propaganda and rhetoric.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes... Because man sometimes needs to form militias in order to defend life, liberty and property, the right for men to bear arms is a natural law, endowed by our Creator and inalienable... not to be infringed.
Click to expand...

Our Second Amendment specifically claims _well regulated_ militia are necessary, not the unorganized militia.


----------



## Boss

danielpalos said:


> Our Second Amendment specifically claims _well regulated_ militia are necessary, not the unorganized militia.



Regulated means outfitted. It is making the statement that our right to own guns is inalienable because it's a natural right. Because men sometimes have to organize militias to defend life, liberty and property, we have the God-given right to own guns. You are trying to manipulate and torture the meaning to derive your "privilege of state" to regulate guns but owning a gun is a stated natural right. 

Some of our rights are civil rights. They come from legislation and court actions. They are not natural rights like our right to bear arms. By trying to make right to bear arms into a civil right, you render ALL natural rights to be civil. This means none of your rights are inalienable.


----------



## danielpalos

Boss said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment specifically claims _well regulated_ militia are necessary, not the unorganized militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regulated means outfitted. It is making the statement that our right to own guns is inalienable because it's a natural right. Because men sometimes have to organize militias to defend life, liberty and property, we have the God-given right to own guns. You are trying to manipulate and torture the meaning to derive your "privilege of state" to regulate guns but owning a gun is a stated natural right.
> 
> Some of our rights are civil rights. They come from legislation and court actions. They are not natural rights like our right to bear arms. By trying to make right to bear arms into a civil right, you render ALL natural rights to be civil. This means none of your rights are inalienable.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't.  That is the usual, appeal to ignorance of the law of the right wing.

Our federal Congress must _prescribe_, wellness of regulation for the Militia of the United States.


----------



## Boss

danielpalos said:


> No, it doesn't. That is the usual, appeal to ignorance of the law of the right wing.
> 
> *Our federal Congress must prescribe, wellness of regulation* for the Militia of the United States.



Where is THAT stated?


----------



## danielpalos

Boss said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't. That is the usual, appeal to ignorance of the law of the right wing.
> 
> *Our federal Congress must prescribe, wellness of regulation* for the Militia of the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is THAT stated?
Click to expand...

In Article 1, Section 8.  It has Always been there.


----------



## rightwinger

Boss said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment specifically claims _well regulated_ militia are necessary, not the unorganized militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regulated means outfitted. It is making the statement that our right to own guns is inalienable because it's a natural right. Because men sometimes have to organize militias to defend life, liberty and property, we have the God-given right to own guns. You are trying to manipulate and torture the meaning to derive your "privilege of state" to regulate guns but owning a gun is a stated natural right.
> 
> Some of our rights are civil rights. They come from legislation and court actions. They are not natural rights like our right to bear arms. By trying to make right to bear arms into a civil right, you render ALL natural rights to be civil. This means none of your rights are inalienable.
Click to expand...


It means supplied, trained and having an established command structure

Something a bunch of gun nuts are not


----------



## Boss

rightwinger said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment specifically claims _well regulated_ militia are necessary, not the unorganized militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regulated means outfitted. It is making the statement that our right to own guns is inalienable because it's a natural right. Because men sometimes have to organize militias to defend life, liberty and property, we have the God-given right to own guns. You are trying to manipulate and torture the meaning to derive your "privilege of state" to regulate guns but owning a gun is a stated natural right.
> 
> Some of our rights are civil rights. They come from legislation and court actions. They are not natural rights like our right to bear arms. By trying to make right to bear arms into a civil right, you render ALL natural rights to be civil. This means none of your rights are inalienable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It means supplied, trained and having an established command structure
> 
> Something a bunch of gun nuts are not
Click to expand...


Well that's your opinion but it doesn't change the fact that our right to bear arms is a natural right that cannot be infringed or alienated. It's like our right to life, speech and worship. The legislature and courts have dominion over our civil rights. They can legislate and rule however they please on those. A natural right is different. The legislature and courts can only impose restrictions or limitations WE authorize.


----------



## danielpalos

natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions.  

and,

States have a right to regulate their unorganized militias via the police power instead of the militia power.


----------



## ding

danielpalos said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> the first clause of our Second Amendment, is the Intent and Purpose. It, is the supreme law of the land, not your right wing propaganda and rhetoric.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes... Because man sometimes needs to form militias in order to defend life, liberty and property, the right for men to bear arms is a natural law, endowed by our Creator and inalienable... not to be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment specifically claims _well regulated_ militia are necessary, not the unorganized militia.
Click to expand...




rightwinger said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment specifically claims _well regulated_ militia are necessary, not the unorganized militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regulated means outfitted. It is making the statement that our right to own guns is inalienable because it's a natural right. Because men sometimes have to organize militias to defend life, liberty and property, we have the God-given right to own guns. You are trying to manipulate and torture the meaning to derive your "privilege of state" to regulate guns but owning a gun is a stated natural right.
> 
> Some of our rights are civil rights. They come from legislation and court actions. They are not natural rights like our right to bear arms. By trying to make right to bear arms into a civil right, you render ALL natural rights to be civil. This means none of your rights are inalienable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It means supplied, trained and having an established command structure
> 
> Something a bunch of gun nuts are not
Click to expand...

_Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it._


----------



## ding

danielpalos said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't. That is the usual, appeal to ignorance of the law of the right wing.
> 
> *Our federal Congress must prescribe, wellness of regulation* for the Militia of the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is THAT stated?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In Article 1, Section 8.  It has Always been there.
Click to expand...

Let's see what it really says, ok?

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

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;

U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8 - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net


----------



## danielpalos

ding said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> the first clause of our Second Amendment, is the Intent and Purpose. It, is the supreme law of the land, not your right wing propaganda and rhetoric.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes... Because man sometimes needs to form militias in order to defend life, liberty and property, the right for men to bear arms is a natural law, endowed by our Creator and inalienable... not to be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment specifically claims _well regulated_ militia are necessary, not the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment specifically claims _well regulated_ militia are necessary, not the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Regulated means outfitted. It is making the statement that our right to own guns is inalienable because it's a natural right. Because men sometimes have to organize militias to defend life, liberty and property, we have the God-given right to own guns. You are trying to manipulate and torture the meaning to derive your "privilege of state" to regulate guns but owning a gun is a stated natural right.
> 
> Some of our rights are civil rights. They come from legislation and court actions. They are not natural rights like our right to bear arms. By trying to make right to bear arms into a civil right, you render ALL natural rights to be civil. This means none of your rights are inalienable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It means supplied, trained and having an established command structure
> 
> Something a bunch of gun nuts are not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it._
Click to expand...

Only true socialists refuse to "compete in our objective, market based reality".  

We have a supreme law of the land for a reason.  Our Founding Fathers did an Most Excellent job at the convention with our federal Constitution; they thought of every Thing.

_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;
_
Wellness of Regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.


----------



## emilynghiem

danielpalos said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> the first clause of our Second Amendment, is the Intent and Purpose. It, is the supreme law of the land, not your right wing propaganda and rhetoric.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes... Because man sometimes needs to form militias in order to defend life, liberty and property, the right for men to bear arms is a natural law, endowed by our Creator and inalienable... not to be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment specifically claims _well regulated_ militia are necessary, not the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment specifically claims _well regulated_ militia are necessary, not the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Regulated means outfitted. It is making the statement that our right to own guns is inalienable because it's a natural right. Because men sometimes have to organize militias to defend life, liberty and property, we have the God-given right to own guns. You are trying to manipulate and torture the meaning to derive your "privilege of state" to regulate guns but owning a gun is a stated natural right.
> 
> Some of our rights are civil rights. They come from legislation and court actions. They are not natural rights like our right to bear arms. By trying to make right to bear arms into a civil right, you render ALL natural rights to be civil. This means none of your rights are inalienable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It means supplied, trained and having an established command structure
> 
> Something a bunch of gun nuts are not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only true socialists refuse to "compete in our objective, market based reality".
> 
> We have a supreme law of the land for a reason.  Our Founding Fathers did an Most Excellent job at the convention with our federal Constitution; they thought of every Thing.
> 
> _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;
> _
> Wellness of Regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.
Click to expand...


Dear danielpalos 
I think it should be clear from US history that we have BOTH militia traditions going on
1. Both the official military and police through govt
2. And the tradition of independent citizenry and also independent militia not necessarily affiliated with official govt military or local police

Nobody can deny the history of the US in having BOTH.

1. at the time the 2nd Amendment was drafted and adapted into law,
some of the states in support DID NOT EVEN HAVE their own "state militias"
2. given the HISTORY of the US where American colonists and patriots had to defend their own "right to bear arms" from the British forces that sought to disarm and control them, it's common knowledge that this is what the 2nd Amendment means (in addition to what we all recognize as OFFICIAL military AS WELL, not "either/or" but BOTH existing)
3. where I live in Texas, we have a history of BOTH state-recognized militia and independent citizens or militia groups. There is no contradiction with "official" police and military AS LONG AS CITIZENS VOW TO UPHOLD THE SAME CONSTITUTIONAL LAWS AS THE COMMON AUTHORITY.

So THAT ^ Constitutional authority is what determines if groups are PERCEIVED as "law abiding" or not.  

At least in Texas, and with most Conservative Constitutional and Christian groups I know of, ANYONE can invoke and embody Constitutional authority as "we the people" and enforce the "democratic principles" of government.
For example, the Houston police mission statement, calls for involving citizens
in "all aspects of policing."  Clearly this would mean to UPHOLD AND FOLLOW laws and to ensure other people respect the laws as well.

So that's it that spirit of *"respect for law and order"* that determines if people are seen as exercising the right to bear arms and defense lawfully or not.


----------



## ding

danielpalos said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> the first clause of our Second Amendment, is the Intent and Purpose. It, is the supreme law of the land, not your right wing propaganda and rhetoric.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes... Because man sometimes needs to form militias in order to defend life, liberty and property, the right for men to bear arms is a natural law, endowed by our Creator and inalienable... not to be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment specifically claims _well regulated_ militia are necessary, not the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment specifically claims _well regulated_ militia are necessary, not the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Regulated means outfitted. It is making the statement that our right to own guns is inalienable because it's a natural right. Because men sometimes have to organize militias to defend life, liberty and property, we have the God-given right to own guns. You are trying to manipulate and torture the meaning to derive your "privilege of state" to regulate guns but owning a gun is a stated natural right.
> 
> Some of our rights are civil rights. They come from legislation and court actions. They are not natural rights like our right to bear arms. By trying to make right to bear arms into a civil right, you render ALL natural rights to be civil. This means none of your rights are inalienable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It means supplied, trained and having an established command structure
> 
> Something a bunch of gun nuts are not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only true socialists refuse to "compete in our objective, market based reality".
> 
> We have a supreme law of the land for a reason.  Our Founding Fathers did an Most Excellent job at the convention with our federal Constitution; they thought of every Thing.
> 
> _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;
> _
> Wellness of Regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.
Click to expand...

Let me repeat this since this is the winning hand...  _Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it._


----------



## danielpalos

emilynghiem said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> the first clause of our Second Amendment, is the Intent and Purpose. It, is the supreme law of the land, not your right wing propaganda and rhetoric.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes... Because man sometimes needs to form militias in order to defend life, liberty and property, the right for men to bear arms is a natural law, endowed by our Creator and inalienable... not to be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment specifically claims _well regulated_ militia are necessary, not the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment specifically claims _well regulated_ militia are necessary, not the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Regulated means outfitted. It is making the statement that our right to own guns is inalienable because it's a natural right. Because men sometimes have to organize militias to defend life, liberty and property, we have the God-given right to own guns. You are trying to manipulate and torture the meaning to derive your "privilege of state" to regulate guns but owning a gun is a stated natural right.
> 
> Some of our rights are civil rights. They come from legislation and court actions. They are not natural rights like our right to bear arms. By trying to make right to bear arms into a civil right, you render ALL natural rights to be civil. This means none of your rights are inalienable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It means supplied, trained and having an established command structure
> 
> Something a bunch of gun nuts are not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only true socialists refuse to "compete in our objective, market based reality".
> 
> We have a supreme law of the land for a reason.  Our Founding Fathers did an Most Excellent job at the convention with our federal Constitution; they thought of every Thing.
> 
> _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;
> _
> Wellness of Regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear danielpalos
> I think it should be clear from US history that we have BOTH militia traditions going on
> 1. Both the official military and police through govt
> 2. And the tradition of independent citizenry and also independent militia not necessarily affiliated with official govt military or local police
> 
> Nobody can deny the history of the US in having BOTH.
> 
> 1. at the time the 2nd Amendment was drafted and adapted into law,
> some of the states in support DID NOT EVEN HAVE their own "state militias"
> 2. given the HISTORY of the US where American colonists and patriots had to defend their own "right to bear arms" from the British forces that sought to disarm and control them, it's common knowledge that this is what the 2nd Amendment means (in addition to what we all recognize as OFFICIAL military AS WELL, not "either/or" but BOTH existing)
> 3. where I live in Texas, we have a history of BOTH state-recognized militia and independent citizens or militia groups. There is no contradiction with "official" police and military AS LONG AS CITIZENS VOW TO UPHOLD THE SAME CONSTITUTIONAL LAWS AS THE COMMON AUTHORITY.
> 
> So THAT ^ Constitutional authority is what determines if groups are PERCEIVED as "law abiding" or not.
> 
> At least in Texas, and with most Conservative Constitutional and Christian groups I know of, ANYONE can invoke and embody Constitutional authority as "we the people" and enforce the "democratic principles" of government.
> For example, the Houston police mission statement, calls for involving citizens
> in "all aspects of policing."  Clearly this would mean to UPHOLD AND FOLLOW laws and to ensure other people respect the laws as well.
> 
> So that's it that spirit of *"respect for law and order"* that determines if people are seen as exercising the right to bear arms and defense lawfully or not.
Click to expand...

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions.  Our Second Amendment is not about natural rights, for Individuals.


----------



## danielpalos

ding said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> the first clause of our Second Amendment, is the Intent and Purpose. It, is the supreme law of the land, not your right wing propaganda and rhetoric.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes... Because man sometimes needs to form militias in order to defend life, liberty and property, the right for men to bear arms is a natural law, endowed by our Creator and inalienable... not to be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment specifically claims _well regulated_ militia are necessary, not the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment specifically claims _well regulated_ militia are necessary, not the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Regulated means outfitted. It is making the statement that our right to own guns is inalienable because it's a natural right. Because men sometimes have to organize militias to defend life, liberty and property, we have the God-given right to own guns. You are trying to manipulate and torture the meaning to derive your "privilege of state" to regulate guns but owning a gun is a stated natural right.
> 
> Some of our rights are civil rights. They come from legislation and court actions. They are not natural rights like our right to bear arms. By trying to make right to bear arms into a civil right, you render ALL natural rights to be civil. This means none of your rights are inalienable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It means supplied, trained and having an established command structure
> 
> Something a bunch of gun nuts are not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only true socialists refuse to "compete in our objective, market based reality".
> 
> We have a supreme law of the land for a reason.  Our Founding Fathers did an Most Excellent job at the convention with our federal Constitution; they thought of every Thing.
> 
> _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;
> _
> Wellness of Regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me repeat this since this is the winning hand...  _Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it._
Click to expand...

_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;_

Wellness of Regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.  It is in our federal Constitution.


----------



## yiostheoy

danielpalos said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes... Because man sometimes needs to form militias in order to defend life, liberty and property, the right for men to bear arms is a natural law, endowed by our Creator and inalienable... not to be infringed.
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment specifically claims _well regulated_ militia are necessary, not the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Regulated means outfitted. It is making the statement that our right to own guns is inalienable because it's a natural right. Because men sometimes have to organize militias to defend life, liberty and property, we have the God-given right to own guns. You are trying to manipulate and torture the meaning to derive your "privilege of state" to regulate guns but owning a gun is a stated natural right.
> 
> Some of our rights are civil rights. They come from legislation and court actions. They are not natural rights like our right to bear arms. By trying to make right to bear arms into a civil right, you render ALL natural rights to be civil. This means none of your rights are inalienable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It means supplied, trained and having an established command structure
> 
> Something a bunch of gun nuts are not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only true socialists refuse to "compete in our objective, market based reality".
> 
> We have a supreme law of the land for a reason.  Our Founding Fathers did an Most Excellent job at the convention with our federal Constitution; they thought of every Thing.
> 
> _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;
> _
> Wellness of Regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me repeat this since this is the winning hand...  _Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _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;_
> 
> Wellness of Regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.  It is in our federal Constitution.
Click to expand...

You need to start with a link to somewhere in the Twilightzone.


----------



## danielpalos

yiostheoy said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment specifically claims _well regulated_ militia are necessary, not the unorganized militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It means supplied, trained and having an established command structure
> 
> Something a bunch of gun nuts are not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only true socialists refuse to "compete in our objective, market based reality".
> 
> We have a supreme law of the land for a reason.  Our Founding Fathers did an Most Excellent job at the convention with our federal Constitution; they thought of every Thing.
> 
> _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;
> _
> Wellness of Regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me repeat this since this is the winning hand...  _Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _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;_
> 
> Wellness of Regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.  It is in our federal Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to start with a link to somewhere in the Twilightzone.
Click to expand...

thanks for ceding the point and the argument; by having nothing but rejection instead of any form of valid rebuttal.


----------

