# Exactly what and why was the 2nd amendment written like it is



## Daryl Hunt

I won't look at today.  I will look at the time around 1790.

*Militia Act of 1792*
_Every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.
_
First we need to look at who was a Citizen in 1790s.  In the 1790s, ALL Blacks even free Blacks were prohibited from owning and carrying firearms.  All People even whites that would not swear allegiance to the newly formed United States were prohibited from owning or carrying fire arms.  Women were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms.  Bonded Slaves, even whites were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms of any kind.  It all pretty much boiled down that a Citizen was a Free White Male Land Owner deemed to be in good standing with the Existing Government both Stated and Federal Governments.  It's been estimated that only about 8% of the population from that time met the full requirement to own, possess and carry firearms legally.  Remember, more than half of the population of that time either supported the Crown or leaned heavily in that direction.  The Newly Formed Colonist Government did exactly what the British Government tried to do themselves.  

There were two rebellions that made the Militia Act of 1792 to be written and adopted.  The Shays Rebellion of 1786-1787 and the Whiskey Rebellion 1791-1794.  While neither amounted to much, the founding fathers were scared to death that something else might come up that might endanger the newly formed Government so they adopted the 2nd Amendment as it was written since there was no Standing Army to prevent any decent resurrection from becoming successful.    It was left up to each state individually to provide the militias to prevent it from happening.  As long as the states agreed and didn't go to war with each other.  

Using the original definition, if you don't own your House, Farm or Business and you don't completely and blindly support our current Government then are not a Citizen in Good Standings and will not be afforded the right to own, posses or carry any form of Firearms.  Oh, and you must be a Free White Male as well.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

Applying 21st Century mores to 18th Century thinking is an exercise in vanity.

The militia is bound to the right.  The right is not bound to the militia.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Yup so using your logic we ave no right to privacy with computers phones or any electronics of any kind right?


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Billy_Kinetta said:


> Applying 21st Century mores to 18th Century thinking is an exercise in vanity.
> 
> The militia is bound to the right.  The right is not bound to the militia.



If you want to follow the meaning of the 2nd amendment, the Militia is bound to the Government which should be neither right nor left, it just is.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

RetiredGySgt said:


> Yup so using your logic we ave no right to privacy with computers phones or any electronics of any kind right?



I just stated facts and history.  Once you learn why the 2nd amendment was written as it was and still is it all of a sudden makes sense.  But it made sense only then.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Daryl Hunt said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup so using your logic we ave no right to privacy with computers phones or any electronics of any kind right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just stated facts and history.  Once you learn why the 2nd amendment was written as it was and still is it all of a sudden makes sense.  But it made sense only then.
Click to expand...

No you are trying to claim that rules made then do not apply now cause they are old and I called you on it.


----------



## danielpalos

Daryl Hunt said:


> I won't look at today.  I will look at the time around 1790.
> 
> *Militia Act of 1792*
> _Every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.
> _
> First we need to look at who was a Citizen in 1790s.  In the 1790s, ALL Blacks even free Blacks were prohibited from owning and carrying firearms.  All People even whites that would not swear allegiance to the newly formed United States were prohibited from owning or carrying fire arms.  Women were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms.  Bonded Slaves, even whites were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms of any kind.  It all pretty much boiled down that a Citizen was a Free White Male Land Owner deemed to be in good standing with the Existing Government both Stated and Federal Governments.  It's been estimated that only about 8% of the population from that time met the full requirement to own, possess and carry firearms legally.  Remember, more than half of the population of that time either supported the Crown or leaned heavily in that direction.  The Newly Formed Colonist Government did exactly what the British Government tried to do themselves.
> 
> There were two rebellions that made the Militia Act of 1792 to be written and adopted.  The Shays Rebellion of 1786-1787 and the Whiskey Rebellion 1791-1794.  While neither amounted to much, the founding fathers were scared to death that something else might come up that might endanger the newly formed Government so they adopted the 2nd Amendment as it was written since there was no Standing Army to prevent any decent resurrection from becoming successful.    It was left up to each state individually to provide the militias to prevent it from happening.  As long as the states agreed and didn't go to war with each other.
> 
> Using the original definition, if you don't own your House, Farm or Business and you don't completely and blindly support our current Government then are not a Citizen in Good Standings and will not be afforded the right to own, posses or carry any form of Firearms.  Oh, and you must be a Free White Male as well.


an open book test?  only the "dumb ones" don't get it.


----------



## danielpalos

Billy_Kinetta said:


> Applying 21st Century mores to 18th Century thinking is an exercise in vanity.
> 
> The militia is bound to the right.  The right is not bound to the militia.


Our Second Amendment is about what is Necessary to the security of a free State.


----------



## flacaltenn

Daryl Hunt said:


> I won't look at today.  I will look at the time around 1790.
> 
> *Militia Act of 1792*
> _Every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.
> _
> First we need to look at who was a Citizen in 1790s.  In the 1790s, ALL Blacks even free Blacks were prohibited from owning and carrying firearms.  All People even whites that would not swear allegiance to the newly formed United States were prohibited from owning or carrying fire arms.  Women were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms.  Bonded Slaves, even whites were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms of any kind.  It all pretty much boiled down that a Citizen was a Free White Male Land Owner deemed to be in good standing with the Existing Government both Stated and Federal Governments.  It's been estimated that only about 8% of the population from that time met the full requirement to own, possess and carry firearms legally.  Remember, more than half of the population of that time either supported the Crown or leaned heavily in that direction.  The Newly Formed Colonist Government did exactly what the British Government tried to do themselves.
> 
> There were two rebellions that made the Militia Act of 1792 to be written and adopted.  The Shays Rebellion of 1786-1787 and the Whiskey Rebellion 1791-1794.  While neither amounted to much, the founding fathers were scared to death that something else might come up that might endanger the newly formed Government so they adopted the 2nd Amendment as it was written since there was no Standing Army to prevent any decent resurrection from becoming successful.    It was left up to each state individually to provide the militias to prevent it from happening.  As long as the states agreed and didn't go to war with each other.
> 
> Using the original definition, if you don't own your House, Farm or Business and you don't completely and blindly support our current Government then are not a Citizen in Good Standings and will not be afforded the right to own, posses or carry any form of Firearms.  Oh, and you must be a Free White Male as well.



Missed it by a mile sonny..  The 2nd was written to COMBINE 2 concepts. That of allowing standing militias as a right reserved to the States and localities and consisting "the people" with the restrictions you noted. However, the second combined explicit right was for EVERY CITIZEN to be allowed to "bear arms". It's all documented in the history of the writing of the US Constitution and the contemporaneous explanations of the Founders.


----------



## danielpalos

Drafting the militia means, grabbing anyone, not just gun lovers; it could mean, emptying our jails to lower costs.


----------



## The Professor

flacaltenn said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I won't look at today.  I will look at the time around 1790.
> 
> *Militia Act of 1792*
> _Every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.
> _
> First we need to look at who was a Citizen in 1790s.  In the 1790s, ALL Blacks even free Blacks were prohibited from owning and carrying firearms.  All People even whites that would not swear allegiance to the newly formed United States were prohibited from owning or carrying fire arms.  Women were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms.  Bonded Slaves, even whites were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms of any kind.  It all pretty much boiled down that a Citizen was a Free White Male Land Owner deemed to be in good standing with the Existing Government both Stated and Federal Governments.  It's been estimated that only about 8% of the population from that time met the full requirement to own, possess and carry firearms legally.  Remember, more than half of the population of that time either supported the Crown or leaned heavily in that direction.  The Newly Formed Colonist Government did exactly what the British Government tried to do themselves.
> 
> There were two rebellions that made the Militia Act of 1792 to be written and adopted.  The Shays Rebellion of 1786-1787 and the Whiskey Rebellion 1791-1794.  While neither amounted to much, the founding fathers were scared to death that something else might come up that might endanger the newly formed Government so they adopted the 2nd Amendment as it was written since there was no Standing Army to prevent any decent resurrection from becoming successful.    It was left up to each state individually to provide the militias to prevent it from happening.  As long as the states agreed and didn't go to war with each other.
> 
> Using the original definition, if you don't own your House, Farm or Business and you don't completely and blindly support our current Government then are not a Citizen in Good Standings and will not be afforded the right to own, posses or carry any form of Firearms.  Oh, and you must be a Free White Male as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missed it by a mile sonny..  The 2nd was written to COMBINE 2 concepts. That of allowing standing militias as a right reserved to the States and localities and consisting "the people" with the restrictions you noted. However, the second combined explicit right was for EVERY CITIZEN to be allowed to "bear arms". It's all documented in the history of the writing of the US Constitution and the contemporaneous explanations of the Founders.
Click to expand...


Well stated.  Concise, and spot on.

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) agrees with you. Here are the relevant
portions of the SCOTUS decision in _DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER_ (Decided June 26, 2008):

_Held:_

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither _United States_ v. _Cruikshank_, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor _Presser_ v. _Illinois_, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. _United States _v. _Miller_, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, _i.e._, those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. 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. _Miller’_s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp.54–56.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)


----------



## Daryl Hunt

RetiredGySgt said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup so using your logic we ave no right to privacy with computers phones or any electronics of any kind right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just stated facts and history.  Once you learn why the 2nd amendment was written as it was and still is it all of a sudden makes sense.  But it made sense only then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No you are trying to claim that rules made then do not apply now cause they are old and I called you on it.
Click to expand...


If the same rules applied then and now, here are the ones that would be the only ones that would be able to own, purchase and carry firearms.

1.  Land Owners
2.  Free Men
3.  Whites
4.  Only those that are in good standings with the current ruling party

Not having all 4 of those would mean that if you do have firearms yours would be confiscated and you would not be able to replace them until the next group of governing group that agrees with you takes office.  And you would have to own land, be white and be a Man.  Only those that meets all 4 of those criteria would be able to be a member and be required to be in the militia for a given state.  If you believe our founding fathers weren't a bunch of bigots you would be wrong.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

danielpalos said:


> Drafting the militia means, grabbing anyone, not just gun lovers; it could mean, emptying our jails to lower costs.



No, because if you are in prison, you are cannot be considered a full Citizen therefore under our original fore fathers way of thinking you would not be able to be a citizen and would not be able to own, possess or purchase a firearm.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Daryl Hunt said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Drafting the militia means, grabbing anyone, not just gun lovers; it could mean, emptying our jails to lower costs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, because if you are in prison, you are cannot be considered a full Citizen therefore under our original fore fathers way of thinking you would not be able to be a citizen and would not be able to own, possess or purchase a firearm.
Click to expand...


That would mean that they only apply to the Free White Men.  And that would mean that it would only apply to about 8% of the population then and now.  Everyone else would not be able to buy, possess or use firearms.  IS that what you want?


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

danielpalos said:


> Drafting the militia means, grabbing anyone, not just gun lovers; it could mean, emptying our jails to lower costs.


----------



## danielpalos

Daryl Hunt said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Drafting the militia means, grabbing anyone, not just gun lovers; it could mean, emptying our jails to lower costs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, because if you are in prison, you are cannot be considered a full Citizen therefore under our original fore fathers way of thinking you would not be able to be a citizen and would not be able to own, possess or purchase a firearm.
Click to expand...

The right of the People!


----------



## Daryl Hunt

danielpalos said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Drafting the militia means, grabbing anyone, not just gun lovers; it could mean, emptying our jails to lower costs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, because if you are in prison, you are cannot be considered a full Citizen therefore under our original fore fathers way of thinking you would not be able to be a citizen and would not be able to own, possess or purchase a firearm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right of the People!
Click to expand...


Even today, most states do not allow convicted felons to ever own firearms ever again.  It's not a Federal thing, it's a state thing.


----------



## danielpalos

Daryl Hunt said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Drafting the militia means, grabbing anyone, not just gun lovers; it could mean, emptying our jails to lower costs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, because if you are in prison, you are cannot be considered a full Citizen therefore under our original fore fathers way of thinking you would not be able to be a citizen and would not be able to own, possess or purchase a firearm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right of the People!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even today, most states do not allow convicted felons to ever own firearms ever again.  It's not a Federal thing, it's a state thing.
Click to expand...

We have a Second Amendment.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

danielpalos said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Drafting the militia means, grabbing anyone, not just gun lovers; it could mean, emptying our jails to lower costs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, because if you are in prison, you are cannot be considered a full Citizen therefore under our original fore fathers way of thinking you would not be able to be a citizen and would not be able to own, possess or purchase a firearm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right of the People!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even today, most states do not allow convicted felons to ever own firearms ever again.  It's not a Federal thing, it's a state thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have a Second Amendment.
Click to expand...


Which only applies to the Federals.  It does not apply to the States according to the SCOTUS.  If you want the 2nd amendment to apply to the states you need to get it into the Congress and have it rewritten to include the states and have the President to sign it into law.  The founding fathers never intended for it to apply to the states.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Wrong the 14th amendment solved that problem incorporating the amendments into the States.


----------



## danielpalos

Daryl Hunt said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Drafting the militia means, grabbing anyone, not just gun lovers; it could mean, emptying our jails to lower costs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, because if you are in prison, you are cannot be considered a full Citizen therefore under our original fore fathers way of thinking you would not be able to be a citizen and would not be able to own, possess or purchase a firearm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right of the People!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even today, most states do not allow convicted felons to ever own firearms ever again.  It's not a Federal thing, it's a state thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have a Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which only applies to the Federals.  It does not apply to the States according to the SCOTUS.  If you want the 2nd amendment to apply to the states you need to get it into the Congress and have it rewritten to include the states and have the President to sign it into law.  The founding fathers never intended for it to apply to the states.
Click to expand...

Congress has the authority to call up the militia.


----------



## danielpalos

RetiredGySgt said:


> Wrong the 14th amendment solved that problem incorporating the amendments into the States.


The People is still plural not singular; and, natural, individual, and singular rights, are in State Constitutions.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

danielpalos said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong the 14th amendment solved that problem incorporating the amendments into the States.
> 
> 
> 
> The People is still plural not singular; and, natural, individual, and singular rights, are in State Constitutions.
Click to expand...

Does not change the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled that the amendments apply to the States.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

RetiredGySgt said:


> Wrong the 14th amendment solved that problem incorporating the amendments into the States.



The 14th amendment has absolutely nothing to do with the 2nd amendment at all.  What are you smoking over there or are you just throwing crap at the wall and seeing what will stick?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Daryl Hunt said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong the 14th amendment solved that problem incorporating the amendments into the States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 14th amendment has absolutely nothing to do with the 2nd amendment at all.  What are you smoking over there or are you just throwing crap at the wall and seeing what will stick?
Click to expand...

The 14th amendment has been used since it was written to INCORPORATE the other amendments at the State level. Or do you deny the 5th 6th 8th 4th amendments do not apply to the States?


----------



## Daryl Hunt

danielpalos said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, because if you are in prison, you are cannot be considered a full Citizen therefore under our original fore fathers way of thinking you would not be able to be a citizen and would not be able to own, possess or purchase a firearm.
> 
> 
> 
> The right of the People!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even today, most states do not allow convicted felons to ever own firearms ever again.  It's not a Federal thing, it's a state thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have a Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which only applies to the Federals.  It does not apply to the States according to the SCOTUS.  If you want the 2nd amendment to apply to the states you need to get it into the Congress and have it rewritten to include the states and have the President to sign it into law.  The founding fathers never intended for it to apply to the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Congress has the authority to call up the militia.
Click to expand...


Wrong.  They have the legal right to call up the National Guard, not the State Militia.  Now, if any of the individual State Militia falls has prior obligation to either the Federal Military or are also in the National Guard, they can be nationalized.  But if they have no prior obligation, they cannot be federalize without the individuals permission.  It's been this way since the 1917 National Guard act.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

RetiredGySgt said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong the 14th amendment solved that problem incorporating the amendments into the States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 14th amendment has absolutely nothing to do with the 2nd amendment at all.  What are you smoking over there or are you just throwing crap at the wall and seeing what will stick?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 14th amendment has been used since it was written to INCORPORATE the other amendments at the State level. Or do you deny the 5th 6th 8th 4th amendments do not apply to the States?
Click to expand...


4th amendment limits the Federal government in what it can do as in housing federal troops, etc..  The State has the right to issue Warrants for searches, the Feds don't have that right.  It's a limit on the Feds, not the State.

5th amendment came about because of the Robber Barons.  The Feds just took what they wanted at the price they wanted and used Federal Troops to back it up with force.  It was revised in 1992 and many years prior to that.  It limits the Federal Government.  

6th amendment just states that the State has the power to try and how they can do it.  It removes the Federals from it except in extenuating conditions.  Each State has it's own method of doing it.

The list goes on and on.  Mostly, the first 10 amendments are for limiting the Federal Governments powers.  And it points out some of the powers of the State.  Now, please throw more crap on that wall.  Maybe something else will stick.


----------



## danielpalos

RetiredGySgt said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong the 14th amendment solved that problem incorporating the amendments into the States.
> 
> 
> 
> The People is still plural not singular; and, natural, individual, and singular rights, are in State Constitutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does not change the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled that the amendments apply to the States.
Click to expand...

The People are the Militia.  Well regulated militia are declared Necessary not the unorganized militia of the whole People.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
*— George Mason*_, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788_


----------



## danielpalos

Daryl Hunt said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right of the People!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even today, most states do not allow convicted felons to ever own firearms ever again.  It's not a Federal thing, it's a state thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have a Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which only applies to the Federals.  It does not apply to the States according to the SCOTUS.  If you want the 2nd amendment to apply to the states you need to get it into the Congress and have it rewritten to include the states and have the President to sign it into law.  The founding fathers never intended for it to apply to the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Congress has the authority to call up the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.  They have the legal right to call up the National Guard, not the State Militia.  Now, if any of the individual State Militia falls has prior obligation to either the Federal Military or are also in the National Guard, they can be nationalized.  But if they have no prior obligation, they cannot be federalize without the individuals permission.  It's been this way since the 1917 National Guard act.
Click to expand...

Congress has the authority to call up the militia. That includes the unorganized militia.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Daryl Hunt said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong the 14th amendment solved that problem incorporating the amendments into the States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 14th amendment has absolutely nothing to do with the 2nd amendment at all.  What are you smoking over there or are you just throwing crap at the wall and seeing what will stick?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 14th amendment has been used since it was written to INCORPORATE the other amendments at the State level. Or do you deny the 5th 6th 8th 4th amendments do not apply to the States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 4th amendment limits the Federal government in what it can do as in housing federal troops, etc..  The State has the right to issue Warrants for searches, the Feds don't have that right.  It's a limit on the Feds, not the State.
> 
> 5th amendment came about because of the Robber Barons.  The Feds just took what they wanted at the price they wanted and used Federal Troops to back it up with force.  It was revised in 1992 and many years prior to that.  It limits the Federal Government.
> 
> 6th amendment just states that the State has the power to try and how they can do it.  It removes the Federals from it except in extenuating conditions.  Each State has it's own method of doing it.
> 
> The list goes on and on.  Mostly, the first 10 amendments are for limiting the Federal Governments powers.  And it points out some of the powers of the State.  Now, please throw more crap on that wall.  Maybe something else will stick.
Click to expand...

You really are stupid aren't you?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Daryl Hunt said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong the 14th amendment solved that problem incorporating the amendments into the States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 14th amendment has absolutely nothing to do with the 2nd amendment at all.  What are you smoking over there or are you just throwing crap at the wall and seeing what will stick?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 14th amendment has been used since it was written to INCORPORATE the other amendments at the State level. Or do you deny the 5th 6th 8th 4th amendments do not apply to the States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 4th amendment limits the Federal government in what it can do as in housing federal troops, etc..  The State has the right to issue Warrants for searches, the Feds don't have that right.  It's a limit on the Feds, not the State.
> 
> 5th amendment came about because of the Robber Barons.  The Feds just took what they wanted at the price they wanted and used Federal Troops to back it up with force.  It was revised in 1992 and many years prior to that.  It limits the Federal Government.
> 
> 6th amendment just states that the State has the power to try and how they can do it.  It removes the Federals from it except in extenuating conditions.  Each State has it's own method of doing it.
> 
> The list goes on and on.  Mostly, the first 10 amendments are for limiting the Federal Governments powers.  And it points out some of the powers of the State.  Now, please throw more crap on that wall.  Maybe something else will stick.
Click to expand...

Te 2nd amendment is an INDIVIDUAL right as determined by the Supreme Court I am afraid that applies to the States as well dumb ass.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

RetiredGySgt said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong the 14th amendment solved that problem incorporating the amendments into the States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 14th amendment has absolutely nothing to do with the 2nd amendment at all.  What are you smoking over there or are you just throwing crap at the wall and seeing what will stick?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 14th amendment has been used since it was written to INCORPORATE the other amendments at the State level. Or do you deny the 5th 6th 8th 4th amendments do not apply to the States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 4th amendment limits the Federal government in what it can do as in housing federal troops, etc..  The State has the right to issue Warrants for searches, the Feds don't have that right.  It's a limit on the Feds, not the State.
> 
> 5th amendment came about because of the Robber Barons.  The Feds just took what they wanted at the price they wanted and used Federal Troops to back it up with force.  It was revised in 1992 and many years prior to that.  It limits the Federal Government.
> 
> 6th amendment just states that the State has the power to try and how they can do it.  It removes the Federals from it except in extenuating conditions.  Each State has it's own method of doing it.
> 
> The list goes on and on.  Mostly, the first 10 amendments are for limiting the Federal Governments powers.  And it points out some of the powers of the State.  Now, please throw more crap on that wall.  Maybe something else will stick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Te 2nd amendment is an INDIVIDUAL right as determined by the Supreme Court I am afraid that applies to the States as well dumb ass.
Click to expand...


It limits the Feds and puts the onus on the State.  Get over yourself.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

RetiredGySgt said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong the 14th amendment solved that problem incorporating the amendments into the States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 14th amendment has absolutely nothing to do with the 2nd amendment at all.  What are you smoking over there or are you just throwing crap at the wall and seeing what will stick?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 14th amendment has been used since it was written to INCORPORATE the other amendments at the State level. Or do you deny the 5th 6th 8th 4th amendments do not apply to the States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 4th amendment limits the Federal government in what it can do as in housing federal troops, etc..  The State has the right to issue Warrants for searches, the Feds don't have that right.  It's a limit on the Feds, not the State.
> 
> 5th amendment came about because of the Robber Barons.  The Feds just took what they wanted at the price they wanted and used Federal Troops to back it up with force.  It was revised in 1992 and many years prior to that.  It limits the Federal Government.
> 
> 6th amendment just states that the State has the power to try and how they can do it.  It removes the Federals from it except in extenuating conditions.  Each State has it's own method of doing it.
> 
> The list goes on and on.  Mostly, the first 10 amendments are for limiting the Federal Governments powers.  And it points out some of the powers of the State.  Now, please throw more crap on that wall.  Maybe something else will stick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really are stupid aren't you?
Click to expand...


Thank you for verfying that you have nothing to say.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

danielpalos said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even today, most states do not allow convicted felons to ever own firearms ever again.  It's not a Federal thing, it's a state thing.
> 
> 
> 
> We have a Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which only applies to the Federals.  It does not apply to the States according to the SCOTUS.  If you want the 2nd amendment to apply to the states you need to get it into the Congress and have it rewritten to include the states and have the President to sign it into law.  The founding fathers never intended for it to apply to the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Congress has the authority to call up the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.  They have the legal right to call up the National Guard, not the State Militia.  Now, if any of the individual State Militia falls has prior obligation to either the Federal Military or are also in the National Guard, they can be nationalized.  But if they have no prior obligation, they cannot be federalize without the individuals permission.  It's been this way since the 1917 National Guard act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Congress has the authority to call up the militia. That includes the unorganized militia.
Click to expand...


But not State Militias.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

I notice that the fruitcakes don't like the history lesson so they hijack the thread.  The real message is

The original founding fathers were made up of Auristocrats.  And they made up only about 8% of the actual population.  Their idea of what made up a real citizen was very narrow and if you didn't meet those requirements you weren't invited to join them.  Here are the requirements to be a Citizen in 1770 according to the founding fathers

1.  You must be Male
2.  You must be White (No Tarnished Blood)
3.  You must be a Land Owner
4,  You must swear allegiance to the group of other "Citizens".

What seems to be left out is that the founding fathers condemned the Brits for trying to take the Rebels weapons to prevent a Revolution.  But after the Revolution, the newly formed USA  rounded up weapons of the Non Citizens to prevent a Revolution.  This included British Simpthisers, all Blacks, All Spaniards, All Indians, ALL Mix Races, etc..  And don't forget the Women.  One had to be a Citizen to own, possess, purchess and wield fire arms.  During the Revolution, many "NoN" Citizens did use weapons on the promise that they would become land owners after the war making them full fledged Citizens.  They were lied to.  After the war, no land was granted and their weapons were confiscated.  The Founding Fathers could not afford to have those people armed and allow them to assemble.  There would have been another Revolution where the founding fathers wouldn't have fared so well.  

Most of the first 10 Amendments have been revised to keep them current.  Many have been redone as recent as 1992.  But the 2nd amendment is still exactly as it was written.  Don't you think it's time we updated it to modern times like most of the others?  Or should be allow the 8% to be the only ones to have firearms and be the only ones to have the vote?


----------



## frigidweirdo

Daryl Hunt said:


> I won't look at today.  I will look at the time around 1790.
> 
> *Militia Act of 1792*
> _Every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.
> _
> First we need to look at who was a Citizen in 1790s.  In the 1790s, ALL Blacks even free Blacks were prohibited from owning and carrying firearms.  All People even whites that would not swear allegiance to the newly formed United States were prohibited from owning or carrying fire arms.  Women were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms.  Bonded Slaves, even whites were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms of any kind.  It all pretty much boiled down that a Citizen was a Free White Male Land Owner deemed to be in good standing with the Existing Government both Stated and Federal Governments.  It's been estimated that only about 8% of the population from that time met the full requirement to own, possess and carry firearms legally.  Remember, more than half of the population of that time either supported the Crown or leaned heavily in that direction.  The Newly Formed Colonist Government did exactly what the British Government tried to do themselves.
> 
> There were two rebellions that made the Militia Act of 1792 to be written and adopted.  The Shays Rebellion of 1786-1787 and the Whiskey Rebellion 1791-1794.  While neither amounted to much, the founding fathers were scared to death that something else might come up that might endanger the newly formed Government so they adopted the 2nd Amendment as it was written since there was no Standing Army to prevent any decent resurrection from becoming successful.    It was left up to each state individually to provide the militias to prevent it from happening.  As long as the states agreed and didn't go to war with each other.
> 
> Using the original definition, if you don't own your House, Farm or Business and you don't completely and blindly support our current Government then are not a Citizen in Good Standings and will not be afforded the right to own, posses or carry any form of Firearms.  Oh, and you must be a Free White Male as well.



Well, we have what the Founding Fathers were saying in the House (unfortunately the Senate was secret).

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

Basically they talk about what "bear arms" means.

It means "render military service" and "militia duty". 

It's clear as day. 

Sit back and watch everyone come on here and ignore the fuck out of this document because it's not convenient for them.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

frigidweirdo said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I won't look at today.  I will look at the time around 1790.
> 
> *Militia Act of 1792*
> _Every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.
> _
> First we need to look at who was a Citizen in 1790s.  In the 1790s, ALL Blacks even free Blacks were prohibited from owning and carrying firearms.  All People even whites that would not swear allegiance to the newly formed United States were prohibited from owning or carrying fire arms.  Women were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms.  Bonded Slaves, even whites were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms of any kind.  It all pretty much boiled down that a Citizen was a Free White Male Land Owner deemed to be in good standing with the Existing Government both Stated and Federal Governments.  It's been estimated that only about 8% of the population from that time met the full requirement to own, possess and carry firearms legally.  Remember, more than half of the population of that time either supported the Crown or leaned heavily in that direction.  The Newly Formed Colonist Government did exactly what the British Government tried to do themselves.
> 
> There were two rebellions that made the Militia Act of 1792 to be written and adopted.  The Shays Rebellion of 1786-1787 and the Whiskey Rebellion 1791-1794.  While neither amounted to much, the founding fathers were scared to death that something else might come up that might endanger the newly formed Government so they adopted the 2nd Amendment as it was written since there was no Standing Army to prevent any decent resurrection from becoming successful.    It was left up to each state individually to provide the militias to prevent it from happening.  As long as the states agreed and didn't go to war with each other.
> 
> Using the original definition, if you don't own your House, Farm or Business and you don't completely and blindly support our current Government then are not a Citizen in Good Standings and will not be afforded the right to own, posses or carry any form of Firearms.  Oh, and you must be a Free White Male as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, we have what the Founding Fathers were saying in the House (unfortunately the Senate was secret).
> 
> Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> Basically they talk about what "bear arms" means.
> 
> It means "render military service" and "militia duty".
> 
> It's clear as day.
> 
> Sit back and watch everyone come on here and ignore the fuck out of this document because it's not convenient for them.
Click to expand...


It took the war of 1812 to get rid of the "No Standing Army" clause.  As weak as the Brits were in the Americas, the USA had to take the time to raise an Army in order to combat them.  It took the burning of the Whitehouse for it to sink in.  It was later changed to a standing army of no more than 75,000 which was deemed enough to buy the time to raise an even larger army if needed.  At that point, the 2nd amendment no longer made a lot of sense since no one state could really raise a Militia of 75,000 or more Militia if the Feds decided to go rogue for many decades.  The 2nd amendment is archaically worded and should have been updated right after 1812 to match the change in times. 

Now, I might support it if it were to be changed to "Arm Bears".  it would make hunting Bears a whole new experience.  Imagine hunting a Bear who is armed with a Mah Duece.  Or cornering a Deer who is armed with a Bazooka.  Or a Rabbit with a 9mm Handgun.  makes that walk through the woods a real adventure.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Daryl Hunt said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I won't look at today.  I will look at the time around 1790.
> 
> *Militia Act of 1792*
> _Every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.
> _
> First we need to look at who was a Citizen in 1790s.  In the 1790s, ALL Blacks even free Blacks were prohibited from owning and carrying firearms.  All People even whites that would not swear allegiance to the newly formed United States were prohibited from owning or carrying fire arms.  Women were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms.  Bonded Slaves, even whites were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms of any kind.  It all pretty much boiled down that a Citizen was a Free White Male Land Owner deemed to be in good standing with the Existing Government both Stated and Federal Governments.  It's been estimated that only about 8% of the population from that time met the full requirement to own, possess and carry firearms legally.  Remember, more than half of the population of that time either supported the Crown or leaned heavily in that direction.  The Newly Formed Colonist Government did exactly what the British Government tried to do themselves.
> 
> There were two rebellions that made the Militia Act of 1792 to be written and adopted.  The Shays Rebellion of 1786-1787 and the Whiskey Rebellion 1791-1794.  While neither amounted to much, the founding fathers were scared to death that something else might come up that might endanger the newly formed Government so they adopted the 2nd Amendment as it was written since there was no Standing Army to prevent any decent resurrection from becoming successful.    It was left up to each state individually to provide the militias to prevent it from happening.  As long as the states agreed and didn't go to war with each other.
> 
> Using the original definition, if you don't own your House, Farm or Business and you don't completely and blindly support our current Government then are not a Citizen in Good Standings and will not be afforded the right to own, posses or carry any form of Firearms.  Oh, and you must be a Free White Male as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, we have what the Founding Fathers were saying in the House (unfortunately the Senate was secret).
> 
> Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> Basically they talk about what "bear arms" means.
> 
> It means "render military service" and "militia duty".
> 
> It's clear as day.
> 
> Sit back and watch everyone come on here and ignore the fuck out of this document because it's not convenient for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It took the war of 1812 to get rid of the "No Standing Army" clause.  As weak as the Brits were in the Americas, the USA had to take the time to raise an Army in order to combat them.  It took the burning of the Whitehouse for it to sink in.  It was later changed to a standing army of no more than 75,000 which was deemed enough to buy the time to raise an even larger army if needed.  At that point, the 2nd amendment no longer made a lot of sense since no one state could really raise a Militia of 75,000 or more Militia if the Feds decided to go rogue for many decades.  The 2nd amendment is archaically worded and should have been updated right after 1812 to match the change in times.
> 
> Now, I might support it if it were to be changed to "Arm Bears".  it would make hunting Bears a whole new experience.  Imagine hunting a Bear who is armed with a Mah Duece.  Or cornering a Deer who is armed with a Bazooka.  Or a Rabbit with a 9mm Handgun.  makes that walk through the woods a real adventure.
Click to expand...


But the point of the militia isn't just to have a replacement for the standing army.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

frigidweirdo said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I won't look at today.  I will look at the time around 1790.
> 
> *Militia Act of 1792*
> _Every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.
> _
> First we need to look at who was a Citizen in 1790s.  In the 1790s, ALL Blacks even free Blacks were prohibited from owning and carrying firearms.  All People even whites that would not swear allegiance to the newly formed United States were prohibited from owning or carrying fire arms.  Women were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms.  Bonded Slaves, even whites were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms of any kind.  It all pretty much boiled down that a Citizen was a Free White Male Land Owner deemed to be in good standing with the Existing Government both Stated and Federal Governments.  It's been estimated that only about 8% of the population from that time met the full requirement to own, possess and carry firearms legally.  Remember, more than half of the population of that time either supported the Crown or leaned heavily in that direction.  The Newly Formed Colonist Government did exactly what the British Government tried to do themselves.
> 
> There were two rebellions that made the Militia Act of 1792 to be written and adopted.  The Shays Rebellion of 1786-1787 and the Whiskey Rebellion 1791-1794.  While neither amounted to much, the founding fathers were scared to death that something else might come up that might endanger the newly formed Government so they adopted the 2nd Amendment as it was written since there was no Standing Army to prevent any decent resurrection from becoming successful.    It was left up to each state individually to provide the militias to prevent it from happening.  As long as the states agreed and didn't go to war with each other.
> 
> Using the original definition, if you don't own your House, Farm or Business and you don't completely and blindly support our current Government then are not a Citizen in Good Standings and will not be afforded the right to own, posses or carry any form of Firearms.  Oh, and you must be a Free White Male as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, we have what the Founding Fathers were saying in the House (unfortunately the Senate was secret).
> 
> Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> Basically they talk about what "bear arms" means.
> 
> It means "render military service" and "militia duty".
> 
> It's clear as day.
> 
> Sit back and watch everyone come on here and ignore the fuck out of this document because it's not convenient for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It took the war of 1812 to get rid of the "No Standing Army" clause.  As weak as the Brits were in the Americas, the USA had to take the time to raise an Army in order to combat them.  It took the burning of the Whitehouse for it to sink in.  It was later changed to a standing army of no more than 75,000 which was deemed enough to buy the time to raise an even larger army if needed.  At that point, the 2nd amendment no longer made a lot of sense since no one state could really raise a Militia of 75,000 or more Militia if the Feds decided to go rogue for many decades.  The 2nd amendment is archaically worded and should have been updated right after 1812 to match the change in times.
> 
> Now, I might support it if it were to be changed to "Arm Bears".  it would make hunting Bears a whole new experience.  Imagine hunting a Bear who is armed with a Mah Duece.  Or cornering a Deer who is armed with a Bazooka.  Or a Rabbit with a 9mm Handgun.  makes that walk through the woods a real adventure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the point of the militia isn't just to have a replacement for the standing army.
Click to expand...


In their brilliance, our "Founding Fathers" tried to not have a standing army at all.  In it's place was a state sponsored Militia that could be called up at will by each state.  That only works until another country with a standing army attacks.  In 1812, Britain attacked and overwhelmed the various Militias who weren't working together.  So the USA quickly put together a Standing Army to combat the Brits.  The Brits realized that it wouldn't take much to defeat the US because of the ridiculousness of it's military doctrine so they really didn't take it very serious.  It was a steep learning curve that the US adapted to fast.  Britain came very close to defeating the US.  After that, there was a standing army of not more than 75,000 rule that was in force for many decades for the US until right around the start of the Civil War or possibly the Indian wars.  

The original point of the Militia was so that there was no need for a standing army at all to prevent the Federals from becoming too powerful.  It didn't work out too well.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Daryl Hunt said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I won't look at today.  I will look at the time around 1790.
> 
> *Militia Act of 1792*
> _Every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.
> _
> First we need to look at who was a Citizen in 1790s.  In the 1790s, ALL Blacks even free Blacks were prohibited from owning and carrying firearms.  All People even whites that would not swear allegiance to the newly formed United States were prohibited from owning or carrying fire arms.  Women were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms.  Bonded Slaves, even whites were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms of any kind.  It all pretty much boiled down that a Citizen was a Free White Male Land Owner deemed to be in good standing with the Existing Government both Stated and Federal Governments.  It's been estimated that only about 8% of the population from that time met the full requirement to own, possess and carry firearms legally.  Remember, more than half of the population of that time either supported the Crown or leaned heavily in that direction.  The Newly Formed Colonist Government did exactly what the British Government tried to do themselves.
> 
> There were two rebellions that made the Militia Act of 1792 to be written and adopted.  The Shays Rebellion of 1786-1787 and the Whiskey Rebellion 1791-1794.  While neither amounted to much, the founding fathers were scared to death that something else might come up that might endanger the newly formed Government so they adopted the 2nd Amendment as it was written since there was no Standing Army to prevent any decent resurrection from becoming successful.    It was left up to each state individually to provide the militias to prevent it from happening.  As long as the states agreed and didn't go to war with each other.
> 
> Using the original definition, if you don't own your House, Farm or Business and you don't completely and blindly support our current Government then are not a Citizen in Good Standings and will not be afforded the right to own, posses or carry any form of Firearms.  Oh, and you must be a Free White Male as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, we have what the Founding Fathers were saying in the House (unfortunately the Senate was secret).
> 
> Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> Basically they talk about what "bear arms" means.
> 
> It means "render military service" and "militia duty".
> 
> It's clear as day.
> 
> Sit back and watch everyone come on here and ignore the fuck out of this document because it's not convenient for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It took the war of 1812 to get rid of the "No Standing Army" clause.  As weak as the Brits were in the Americas, the USA had to take the time to raise an Army in order to combat them.  It took the burning of the Whitehouse for it to sink in.  It was later changed to a standing army of no more than 75,000 which was deemed enough to buy the time to raise an even larger army if needed.  At that point, the 2nd amendment no longer made a lot of sense since no one state could really raise a Militia of 75,000 or more Militia if the Feds decided to go rogue for many decades.  The 2nd amendment is archaically worded and should have been updated right after 1812 to match the change in times.
> 
> Now, I might support it if it were to be changed to "Arm Bears".  it would make hunting Bears a whole new experience.  Imagine hunting a Bear who is armed with a Mah Duece.  Or cornering a Deer who is armed with a Bazooka.  Or a Rabbit with a 9mm Handgun.  makes that walk through the woods a real adventure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the point of the militia isn't just to have a replacement for the standing army.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In their brilliance, our "Founding Fathers" tried to not have a standing army at all.  In it's place was a state sponsored Militia that could be called up at will by each state.  That only works until another country with a standing army attacks.  In 1812, Britain attacked and overwhelmed the various Militias who weren't working together.  So the USA quickly put together a Standing Army to combat the Brits.  The Brits realized that it wouldn't take much to defeat the US because of the ridiculousness of it's military doctrine so they really didn't take it very serious.  It was a steep learning curve that the US adapted to fast.  Britain came very close to defeating the US.  After that, there was a standing army of not more than 75,000 rule that was in force for many decades for the US until right around the start of the Civil War or possibly the Indian wars.
> 
> The original point of the Militia was so that there was no need for a standing army at all to prevent the Federals from becoming too powerful.  It didn't work out too well.
Click to expand...


Could there, possibly, be more than one reason to have a militia?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Daryl Hunt said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong the 14th amendment solved that problem incorporating the amendments into the States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 14th amendment has absolutely nothing to do with the 2nd amendment at all.  What are you smoking over there or are you just throwing crap at the wall and seeing what will stick?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 14th amendment has been used since it was written to INCORPORATE the other amendments at the State level. Or do you deny the 5th 6th 8th 4th amendments do not apply to the States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 4th amendment limits the Federal government in what it can do as in housing federal troops, etc..  The State has the right to issue Warrants for searches, the Feds don't have that right.  It's a limit on the Feds, not the State.
> 
> 5th amendment came about because of the Robber Barons.  The Feds just took what they wanted at the price they wanted and used Federal Troops to back it up with force.  It was revised in 1992 and many years prior to that.  It limits the Federal Government.
> 
> 6th amendment just states that the State has the power to try and how they can do it.  It removes the Federals from it except in extenuating conditions.  Each State has it's own method of doing it.
> 
> The list goes on and on.  Mostly, the first 10 amendments are for limiting the Federal Governments powers.  And it points out some of the powers of the State.  Now, please throw more crap on that wall.  Maybe something else will stick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Te 2nd amendment is an INDIVIDUAL right as determined by the Supreme Court I am afraid that applies to the States as well dumb ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It limits the Feds and puts the onus on the State.  Get over yourself.
Click to expand...

It is an individual right that States can not violate, pretty simple concept just like the 5th is an individual right.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Daryl Hunt said:


> I notice that the fruitcakes don't like the history lesson so they hijack the thread.  The real message is
> 
> The original founding fathers were made up of Auristocrats.  And they made up only about 8% of the actual population.  Their idea of what made up a real citizen was very narrow and if you didn't meet those requirements you weren't invited to join them.  Here are the requirements to be a Citizen in 1770 according to the founding fathers
> 
> 1.  You must be Male
> 2.  You must be White (No Tarnished Blood)
> 3.  You must be a Land Owner
> 4,  You must swear allegiance to the group of other "Citizens".
> 
> What seems to be left out is that the founding fathers condemned the Brits for trying to take the Rebels weapons to prevent a Revolution.  But after the Revolution, the newly formed USA  rounded up weapons of the Non Citizens to prevent a Revolution.  This included British Simpthisers, all Blacks, All Spaniards, All Indians, ALL Mix Races, etc..  And don't forget the Women.  One had to be a Citizen to own, possess, purchess and wield fire arms.  During the Revolution, many "NoN" Citizens did use weapons on the promise that they would become land owners after the war making them full fledged Citizens.  They were lied to.  After the war, no land was granted and their weapons were confiscated.  The Founding Fathers could not afford to have those people armed and allow them to assemble.  There would have been another Revolution where the founding fathers wouldn't have fared so well.
> 
> Most of the first 10 Amendments have been revised to keep them current.  Many have been redone as recent as 1992.  But the 2nd amendment is still exactly as it was written.  Don't you think it's time we updated it to modern times like most of the others?  Or should be allow the 8% to be the only ones to have firearms and be the only ones to have the vote?


That however is NOT actually IN the Constitution ANYWHERE. Or perhaps YOU can quote for us the articles that cover it? And no one has rewritten the 10 amendments you retard.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

frigidweirdo said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I won't look at today.  I will look at the time around 1790.
> 
> *Militia Act of 1792*
> _Every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.
> _
> First we need to look at who was a Citizen in 1790s.  In the 1790s, ALL Blacks even free Blacks were prohibited from owning and carrying firearms.  All People even whites that would not swear allegiance to the newly formed United States were prohibited from owning or carrying fire arms.  Women were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms.  Bonded Slaves, even whites were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms of any kind.  It all pretty much boiled down that a Citizen was a Free White Male Land Owner deemed to be in good standing with the Existing Government both Stated and Federal Governments.  It's been estimated that only about 8% of the population from that time met the full requirement to own, possess and carry firearms legally.  Remember, more than half of the population of that time either supported the Crown or leaned heavily in that direction.  The Newly Formed Colonist Government did exactly what the British Government tried to do themselves.
> 
> There were two rebellions that made the Militia Act of 1792 to be written and adopted.  The Shays Rebellion of 1786-1787 and the Whiskey Rebellion 1791-1794.  While neither amounted to much, the founding fathers were scared to death that something else might come up that might endanger the newly formed Government so they adopted the 2nd Amendment as it was written since there was no Standing Army to prevent any decent resurrection from becoming successful.    It was left up to each state individually to provide the militias to prevent it from happening.  As long as the states agreed and didn't go to war with each other.
> 
> Using the original definition, if you don't own your House, Farm or Business and you don't completely and blindly support our current Government then are not a Citizen in Good Standings and will not be afforded the right to own, posses or carry any form of Firearms.  Oh, and you must be a Free White Male as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, we have what the Founding Fathers were saying in the House (unfortunately the Senate was secret).
> 
> Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> Basically they talk about what "bear arms" means.
> 
> It means "render military service" and "militia duty".
> 
> It's clear as day.
> 
> Sit back and watch everyone come on here and ignore the fuck out of this document because it's not convenient for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It took the war of 1812 to get rid of the "No Standing Army" clause.  As weak as the Brits were in the Americas, the USA had to take the time to raise an Army in order to combat them.  It took the burning of the Whitehouse for it to sink in.  It was later changed to a standing army of no more than 75,000 which was deemed enough to buy the time to raise an even larger army if needed.  At that point, the 2nd amendment no longer made a lot of sense since no one state could really raise a Militia of 75,000 or more Militia if the Feds decided to go rogue for many decades.  The 2nd amendment is archaically worded and should have been updated right after 1812 to match the change in times.
> 
> Now, I might support it if it were to be changed to "Arm Bears".  it would make hunting Bears a whole new experience.  Imagine hunting a Bear who is armed with a Mah Duece.  Or cornering a Deer who is armed with a Bazooka.  Or a Rabbit with a 9mm Handgun.  makes that walk through the woods a real adventure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the point of the militia isn't just to have a replacement for the standing army.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In their brilliance, our "Founding Fathers" tried to not have a standing army at all.  In it's place was a state sponsored Militia that could be called up at will by each state.  That only works until another country with a standing army attacks.  In 1812, Britain attacked and overwhelmed the various Militias who weren't working together.  So the USA quickly put together a Standing Army to combat the Brits.  The Brits realized that it wouldn't take much to defeat the US because of the ridiculousness of it's military doctrine so they really didn't take it very serious.  It was a steep learning curve that the US adapted to fast.  Britain came very close to defeating the US.  After that, there was a standing army of not more than 75,000 rule that was in force for many decades for the US until right around the start of the Civil War or possibly the Indian wars.
> 
> The original point of the Militia was so that there was no need for a standing army at all to prevent the Federals from becoming too powerful.  It didn't work out too well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Could there, possibly, be more than one reason to have a militia?
Click to expand...


There certainly is.  In Texas during the emergencies, it's the Texas State Militias that handle it.  The Governor requires all Federal Units to work under the State Militias.  It really chaps the Feds Drawers.  This is why the Texans can handle emergencies better than any other state.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

RetiredGySgt said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I notice that the fruitcakes don't like the history lesson so they hijack the thread.  The real message is
> 
> The original founding fathers were made up of Auristocrats.  And they made up only about 8% of the actual population.  Their idea of what made up a real citizen was very narrow and if you didn't meet those requirements you weren't invited to join them.  Here are the requirements to be a Citizen in 1770 according to the founding fathers
> 
> 1.  You must be Male
> 2.  You must be White (No Tarnished Blood)
> 3.  You must be a Land Owner
> 4,  You must swear allegiance to the group of other "Citizens".
> 
> What seems to be left out is that the founding fathers condemned the Brits for trying to take the Rebels weapons to prevent a Revolution.  But after the Revolution, the newly formed USA  rounded up weapons of the Non Citizens to prevent a Revolution.  This included British Simpthisers, all Blacks, All Spaniards, All Indians, ALL Mix Races, etc..  And don't forget the Women.  One had to be a Citizen to own, possess, purchess and wield fire arms.  During the Revolution, many "NoN" Citizens did use weapons on the promise that they would become land owners after the war making them full fledged Citizens.  They were lied to.  After the war, no land was granted and their weapons were confiscated.  The Founding Fathers could not afford to have those people armed and allow them to assemble.  There would have been another Revolution where the founding fathers wouldn't have fared so well.
> 
> Most of the first 10 Amendments have been revised to keep them current.  Many have been redone as recent as 1992.  But the 2nd amendment is still exactly as it was written.  Don't you think it's time we updated it to modern times like most of the others?  Or should be allow the 8% to be the only ones to have firearms and be the only ones to have the vote?
> 
> 
> 
> That however is NOT actually IN the Constitution ANYWHERE. Or perhaps YOU can quote for us the articles that cover it? And no one has rewritten the 10 amendments you retard.
Click to expand...


Most were revised in 1992.  Revised means rewritten.  Now, go away and please stop throwing so much crap at the wall to see if anything will stick.  I don't have time for your nonsense.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Daryl Hunt said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I notice that the fruitcakes don't like the history lesson so they hijack the thread.  The real message is
> 
> The original founding fathers were made up of Auristocrats.  And they made up only about 8% of the actual population.  Their idea of what made up a real citizen was very narrow and if you didn't meet those requirements you weren't invited to join them.  Here are the requirements to be a Citizen in 1770 according to the founding fathers
> 
> 1.  You must be Male
> 2.  You must be White (No Tarnished Blood)
> 3.  You must be a Land Owner
> 4,  You must swear allegiance to the group of other "Citizens".
> 
> What seems to be left out is that the founding fathers condemned the Brits for trying to take the Rebels weapons to prevent a Revolution.  But after the Revolution, the newly formed USA  rounded up weapons of the Non Citizens to prevent a Revolution.  This included British Simpthisers, all Blacks, All Spaniards, All Indians, ALL Mix Races, etc..  And don't forget the Women.  One had to be a Citizen to own, possess, purchess and wield fire arms.  During the Revolution, many "NoN" Citizens did use weapons on the promise that they would become land owners after the war making them full fledged Citizens.  They were lied to.  After the war, no land was granted and their weapons were confiscated.  The Founding Fathers could not afford to have those people armed and allow them to assemble.  There would have been another Revolution where the founding fathers wouldn't have fared so well.
> 
> Most of the first 10 Amendments have been revised to keep them current.  Many have been redone as recent as 1992.  But the 2nd amendment is still exactly as it was written.  Don't you think it's time we updated it to modern times like most of the others?  Or should be allow the 8% to be the only ones to have firearms and be the only ones to have the vote?
> 
> 
> 
> That however is NOT actually IN the Constitution ANYWHERE. Or perhaps YOU can quote for us the articles that cover it? And no one has rewritten the 10 amendments you retard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most were revised in 1992.  Revised means rewritten.  Now, go away and please stop throwing so much crap at the wall to see if anything will stick.  I don't have time for your nonsense.
Click to expand...

Link me to the NEW 10 amendments you moron they can NOT be rewritten unless amended.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Daryl Hunt said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, we have what the Founding Fathers were saying in the House (unfortunately the Senate was secret).
> 
> Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> Basically they talk about what "bear arms" means.
> 
> It means "render military service" and "militia duty".
> 
> It's clear as day.
> 
> Sit back and watch everyone come on here and ignore the fuck out of this document because it's not convenient for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It took the war of 1812 to get rid of the "No Standing Army" clause.  As weak as the Brits were in the Americas, the USA had to take the time to raise an Army in order to combat them.  It took the burning of the Whitehouse for it to sink in.  It was later changed to a standing army of no more than 75,000 which was deemed enough to buy the time to raise an even larger army if needed.  At that point, the 2nd amendment no longer made a lot of sense since no one state could really raise a Militia of 75,000 or more Militia if the Feds decided to go rogue for many decades.  The 2nd amendment is archaically worded and should have been updated right after 1812 to match the change in times.
> 
> Now, I might support it if it were to be changed to "Arm Bears".  it would make hunting Bears a whole new experience.  Imagine hunting a Bear who is armed with a Mah Duece.  Or cornering a Deer who is armed with a Bazooka.  Or a Rabbit with a 9mm Handgun.  makes that walk through the woods a real adventure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the point of the militia isn't just to have a replacement for the standing army.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In their brilliance, our "Founding Fathers" tried to not have a standing army at all.  In it's place was a state sponsored Militia that could be called up at will by each state.  That only works until another country with a standing army attacks.  In 1812, Britain attacked and overwhelmed the various Militias who weren't working together.  So the USA quickly put together a Standing Army to combat the Brits.  The Brits realized that it wouldn't take much to defeat the US because of the ridiculousness of it's military doctrine so they really didn't take it very serious.  It was a steep learning curve that the US adapted to fast.  Britain came very close to defeating the US.  After that, there was a standing army of not more than 75,000 rule that was in force for many decades for the US until right around the start of the Civil War or possibly the Indian wars.
> 
> The original point of the Militia was so that there was no need for a standing army at all to prevent the Federals from becoming too powerful.  It didn't work out too well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Could there, possibly, be more than one reason to have a militia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There certainly is.  In Texas during the emergencies, it's the Texas State Militias that handle it.  The Governor requires all Federal Units to work under the State Militias.  It really chaps the Feds Drawers.  This is why the Texans can handle emergencies better than any other state.
Click to expand...


I was thinking more about it from the protection from the Federal government point of view.

While I'm not sure this is the right way to go, it's what it is whether you like it or not.


----------



## WinterBorn

Daryl Hunt said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I notice that the fruitcakes don't like the history lesson so they hijack the thread.  The real message is
> 
> The original founding fathers were made up of Auristocrats.  And they made up only about 8% of the actual population.  Their idea of what made up a real citizen was very narrow and if you didn't meet those requirements you weren't invited to join them.  Here are the requirements to be a Citizen in 1770 according to the founding fathers
> 
> 1.  You must be Male
> 2.  You must be White (No Tarnished Blood)
> 3.  You must be a Land Owner
> 4,  You must swear allegiance to the group of other "Citizens".
> 
> What seems to be left out is that the founding fathers condemned the Brits for trying to take the Rebels weapons to prevent a Revolution.  But after the Revolution, the newly formed USA  rounded up weapons of the Non Citizens to prevent a Revolution.  This included British Simpthisers, all Blacks, All Spaniards, All Indians, ALL Mix Races, etc..  And don't forget the Women.  One had to be a Citizen to own, possess, purchess and wield fire arms.  During the Revolution, many "NoN" Citizens did use weapons on the promise that they would become land owners after the war making them full fledged Citizens.  They were lied to.  After the war, no land was granted and their weapons were confiscated.  The Founding Fathers could not afford to have those people armed and allow them to assemble.  There would have been another Revolution where the founding fathers wouldn't have fared so well.
> 
> Most of the first 10 Amendments have been revised to keep them current.  Many have been redone as recent as 1992.  But the 2nd amendment is still exactly as it was written.  Don't you think it's time we updated it to modern times like most of the others?  Or should be allow the 8% to be the only ones to have firearms and be the only ones to have the vote?
> 
> 
> 
> That however is NOT actually IN the Constitution ANYWHERE. Or perhaps YOU can quote for us the articles that cover it? And no one has rewritten the 10 amendments you retard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most were revised in 1992.  Revised means rewritten.  Now, go away and please stop throwing so much crap at the wall to see if anything will stick.  I don't have time for your nonsense.
Click to expand...


Rewritten in 1992?    Got a link for that?

The wording is the same as when I learned them in school in the 1970s.


----------



## danielpalos

RetiredGySgt said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong the 14th amendment solved that problem incorporating the amendments into the States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 14th amendment has absolutely nothing to do with the 2nd amendment at all.  What are you smoking over there or are you just throwing crap at the wall and seeing what will stick?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 14th amendment has been used since it was written to INCORPORATE the other amendments at the State level. Or do you deny the 5th 6th 8th 4th amendments do not apply to the States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 4th amendment limits the Federal government in what it can do as in housing federal troops, etc..  The State has the right to issue Warrants for searches, the Feds don't have that right.  It's a limit on the Feds, not the State.
> 
> 5th amendment came about because of the Robber Barons.  The Feds just took what they wanted at the price they wanted and used Federal Troops to back it up with force.  It was revised in 1992 and many years prior to that.  It limits the Federal Government.
> 
> 6th amendment just states that the State has the power to try and how they can do it.  It removes the Federals from it except in extenuating conditions.  Each State has it's own method of doing it.
> 
> The list goes on and on.  Mostly, the first 10 amendments are for limiting the Federal Governments powers.  And it points out some of the powers of the State.  Now, please throw more crap on that wall.  Maybe something else will stick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Te 2nd amendment is an INDIVIDUAL right as determined by the Supreme Court I am afraid that applies to the States as well dumb ass.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't.  We have a Tenth Amendment.  Both militia and the people are plural, not singular.


----------



## flacaltenn

The Professor said:


> (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
> 
> (c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
> 
> (d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
> 
> (e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.



There it is.. The Bill of Rights was an afterthought to SELL and MARKET the Constitution. There was never a NEED to specify state any POSITIVE rights reserved to the People and the States. But the 10 Amendments were a marketing tool to attempt to address all of the dissent and detractors. And citizens bearing arms had SEVERAL components to it and necessitated some "compression" of wording.


----------



## danielpalos

There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means.

The Federalist Number Forty


----------



## Pop23

If the 2nd amendment was meant as the left says it was........

WHY THE HELL WOULD IT APPEAR IN THE BILL IF RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE.  

Clue, it wouldn’t


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Pop23 said:


> If the 2nd amendment was meant as the left says it was........
> 
> WHY THE HELL WOULD IT APPEAR IN THE BILL IF RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
> 
> Clue, it wouldn’t



We aren't governed by any part of the Bill of Rights.  We are governed by the Constitutions of the United States and the many States.  As nice and lofty as the Bill of Rights is, it's just another piece of parchment, nothing more.


----------



## Pop23

Daryl Hunt said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the 2nd amendment was meant as the left says it was........
> 
> WHY THE HELL WOULD IT APPEAR IN THE BILL IF RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
> 
> Clue, it wouldn’t
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We aren't governed by any part of the Bill of Rights.  We are governed by the Constitutions of the United States and the many States.  As nice and lofty as the Bill of Rights is, it's just another piece of parchment, nothing more.
Click to expand...


LOL, you can’t make an argument as to why it would be included in something THAT WOULD BE SO OUT OF PLACE, that now none of the bill of rights are applicable?

Wow, just wow.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Pop23 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the 2nd amendment was meant as the left says it was........
> 
> WHY THE HELL WOULD IT APPEAR IN THE BILL IF RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
> 
> Clue, it wouldn’t
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We aren't governed by any part of the Bill of Rights.  We are governed by the Constitutions of the United States and the many States.  As nice and lofty as the Bill of Rights is, it's just another piece of parchment, nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, you can’t make an argument as to why it would be included in something THAT WOULD BE SO OUT OF PLACE, that now none of the bill of rights are applicable?
> 
> Wow, just wow.
Click to expand...


I just stated a fact for your straw man.  We are governed by the Constitution which may be based on the Bill of Rights but it's not exactly like the Bill or Rights.  There are no amendments past 10 for the bill of rights.   If the Bill of Rights were so perfect, the Constitution would not have been written so that amendments were able to be added later.  We are governed by the Constitution, not the Bill of Rights.


----------



## westwall

Daryl Hunt said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> Applying 21st Century mores to 18th Century thinking is an exercise in vanity.
> 
> The militia is bound to the right.  The right is not bound to the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to follow the meaning of the 2nd amendment, the Militia is bound to the Government which should be neither right nor left, it just is.
Click to expand...






Wow, you really don'tunderstand the English language do you.  The Militia was a COUNTER to the government.  It wasn't bound to the government, it was a defense FROM the government.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, _Commonplace Book_ (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

"To disarm the people..._s the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 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

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, *and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."*
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788




And on and on and on.  The 2nd Amendment is the ultimate defender of ALL other Rights.  Or, as a much smarter person than I ever said, "the Bill of Rights is nine limitations on what government can do....and one, final option."_


----------



## westwall

Daryl Hunt said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the 2nd amendment was meant as the left says it was........
> 
> WHY THE HELL WOULD IT APPEAR IN THE BILL IF RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
> 
> Clue, it wouldn’t
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We aren't governed by any part of the Bill of Rights.  We are governed by the Constitutions of the United States and the many States.  As nice and lofty as the Bill of Rights is, it's just another piece of parchment, nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, you can’t make an argument as to why it would be included in something THAT WOULD BE SO OUT OF PLACE, that now none of the bill of rights are applicable?
> 
> Wow, just wow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just stated a fact for your straw man.  We are governed by the Constitution which may be based on the Bill of Rights but it's not exactly like the Bill or Rights.  There are no amendments past 10 for the bill of rights.   If the Bill of Rights were so perfect, the Constitution would not have been written so that amendments were able to be added later.  We are governed by the Constitution, not the Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...








Correct, but the Bill of Rights was a REQUIREMENT for the Constitution to be ratified.  Without the Bill of Rights, there _would_ be no Constitution.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Daryl Hunt said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the 2nd amendment was meant as the left says it was........
> 
> WHY THE HELL WOULD IT APPEAR IN THE BILL IF RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
> 
> Clue, it wouldn’t
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We aren't governed by any part of the Bill of Rights.  We are governed by the Constitutions of the United States and the many States.  As nice and lofty as the Bill of Rights is, it's just another piece of parchment, nothing more.
Click to expand...


But the Bill of Rights is part of the US Constitution.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

westwall said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> Applying 21st Century mores to 18th Century thinking is an exercise in vanity.
> 
> The militia is bound to the right.  The right is not bound to the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to follow the meaning of the 2nd amendment, the Militia is bound to the Government which should be neither right nor left, it just is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you really don'tunderstand the English language do you.  The Militia was a COUNTER to the government.  It wasn't bound to the government, it was a defense FROM the government.
> 
> "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
> - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
> 
> "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787
> 
> "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787
> 
> "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
> - Thomas Jefferson, _Commonplace Book_ (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
> 
> "The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824
> 
> "To disarm the people..._s the most effectual way to enslave them."
> - George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 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
> 
> "Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, *and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."*
> - James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And on and on and on.  The 2nd Amendment is the ultimate defender of ALL other Rights.  Or, as a much smarter person than I ever said, "the Bill of Rights is nine limitations on what government can do....and one, final option."_
Click to expand...


I didn't say which government.  You assumed I meant the Federal Government while you are looking for a fight or just trying to be right.  You are kind of right.  But the 2nd amendment is what gives the States the right to have State Militias seperate from the Federal Forces and even the National Guard.  The State can raise an army if it feels the need.  And THAT is the Organized Militia, not the National Guard which can be Nationalized.  But the first half of the 2nd amendment is probably not necessary so much anymore and is primarily used by nutjobs that just want to run around the woods calling themselves Militias.  I call them potential Lynch Mobs.  But a few states still have State Guards and do use them in case of Emergency when one arises.   It really burns Femas drawers when the State Guard takes charge and Fema has to work for them.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

frigidweirdo said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the 2nd amendment was meant as the left says it was........
> 
> WHY THE HELL WOULD IT APPEAR IN THE BILL IF RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
> 
> Clue, it wouldn’t
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We aren't governed by any part of the Bill of Rights.  We are governed by the Constitutions of the United States and the many States.  As nice and lofty as the Bill of Rights is, it's just another piece of parchment, nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the Bill of Rights is part of the US Constitution.
Click to expand...


Yes, but the Bill of Rights is not the Constitution.  It's a seperate document that has no legal standings.  The Constitution did take it's first 10 amendments from it but the constitution is more than that and is the law of the land.  The Bill of Rights is just a supporting document.  Anyone states that we must follow the bill or rights over the Constitution doesn't get my support.


----------



## westwall

Daryl Hunt said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> Applying 21st Century mores to 18th Century thinking is an exercise in vanity.
> 
> The militia is bound to the right.  The right is not bound to the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to follow the meaning of the 2nd amendment, the Militia is bound to the Government which should be neither right nor left, it just is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you really don'tunderstand the English language do you.  The Militia was a COUNTER to the government.  It wasn't bound to the government, it was a defense FROM the government.
> 
> "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
> - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
> 
> "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787
> 
> "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787
> 
> "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
> - Thomas Jefferson, _Commonplace Book_ (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
> 
> "The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824
> 
> "To disarm the people..._s the most effectual way to enslave them."
> - George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 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
> 
> "Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, *and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."*
> - James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And on and on and on.  The 2nd Amendment is the ultimate defender of ALL other Rights.  Or, as a much smarter person than I ever said, "the Bill of Rights is nine limitations on what government can do....and one, final option."_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say which government.  You assumed I meant the Federal Government while you are looking for a fight or just trying to be right.  You are kind of right.  But the 2nd amendment is what gives the States the right to have State Militias seperate from the Federal Forces and even the National Guard.  The State can raise an army if it feels the need.  And THAT is the Organized Militia, not the National Guard which can be Nationalized.  But the first half of the 2nd amendment is probably not necessary so much anymore and is primarily used by nutjobs that just want to run around the woods calling themselves Militias.  I call them potential Lynch Mobs.  But a few states still have State Guards and do use them in case of Emergency when one arises.   It really burns Femas drawers when the State Guard takes charge and Fema has to work for them.
Click to expand...






Nice try, but there is no Bill of Rights for any other government so you had to be talking about our Federal government.  and,  you are wrong.  The 2nd Amendment enumerates a Right of the individual to keep arms for their own PRIVATE defense.  It conveys no Rights to the State at all.  The State after all IS power.  The ridiculous claim that the 2nd gives the government the right to arm itself is simply stupid.  States have no Rights.  PEOPLE DO.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

westwall said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> Applying 21st Century mores to 18th Century thinking is an exercise in vanity.
> 
> The militia is bound to the right.  The right is not bound to the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to follow the meaning of the 2nd amendment, the Militia is bound to the Government which should be neither right nor left, it just is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you really don'tunderstand the English language do you.  The Militia was a COUNTER to the government.  It wasn't bound to the government, it was a defense FROM the government.
> 
> "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
> - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
> 
> "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787
> 
> "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787
> 
> "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
> - Thomas Jefferson, _Commonplace Book_ (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
> 
> "The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824
> 
> "To disarm the people..._s the most effectual way to enslave them."
> - George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 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
> 
> "Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, *and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."*
> - James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And on and on and on.  The 2nd Amendment is the ultimate defender of ALL other Rights.  Or, as a much smarter person than I ever said, "the Bill of Rights is nine limitations on what government can do....and one, final option."_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say which government.  You assumed I meant the Federal Government while you are looking for a fight or just trying to be right.  You are kind of right.  But the 2nd amendment is what gives the States the right to have State Militias seperate from the Federal Forces and even the National Guard.  The State can raise an army if it feels the need.  And THAT is the Organized Militia, not the National Guard which can be Nationalized.  But the first half of the 2nd amendment is probably not necessary so much anymore and is primarily used by nutjobs that just want to run around the woods calling themselves Militias.  I call them potential Lynch Mobs.  But a few states still have State Guards and do use them in case of Emergency when one arises.   It really burns Femas drawers when the State Guard takes charge and Fema has to work for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try, but there is no Bill of Rights for any other government so you had to be talking about our Federal government.  and,  you are wrong.  The 2nd Amendment enumerates a Right of the individual to keep arms for their own PRIVATE defense.  It conveys no Rights to the State at all.  The State after all IS power.  The ridiculous claim that the 2nd gives the government the right to arm itself is simply stupid.  States have no Rights.  PEOPLE DO.
Click to expand...


Let's take  a look at the 2nd amendment and break it into two parts.

*A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, 
*
This was put into place to prevent the Federal Government from becoming all powerful.  Our Founding Fathers were downright paranoid about this after just finishing a war with England.  In fact, they were so paranoid that they limited the Federals to no more than a 75,000 man standing army which would not be enough to even stand against one state's organized militia much less all of them.  But going into WWI, Congress inacted the National Guard Act of 1917 that allowed the Federal Government to fund the Guard Units in the States right around 120 days a year and the Feds could call up the Guard Units.  But they did add a provision that stated that the State could create a States Guard seperate from the National Guard where those in it that were not eligible to be called up could stay with the state guard.  States could have members that were in both Guard Organizations but in the even of federalization, those people would become Federal Troops.  Also, those that still had a commitment to their Military time (i.e. 4 years for some and 10 for others after they leave the active duty service) could serve with the state guard but would be federalized.  This means that states like Texas has a State Guard that is still very strong today which is mostly comprised of Local Police, Sheriffs, Texas Rangers, Fire Fighters and such that cannot be called up and can be used by the Texas Governor as the Old Guard used to be used for including in case of a Rogue Federal Government Uprising.  But the first half of the 2nd amendment really has been watered down and probably needs to be amended to keep it current as there is very little chance that the Federal Military would follow orders to suppress any given state.  You see, it's written into the UCMJ (the Military Constitution) to prevent that from happening.


*the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
*
We also need to include the 14th amendment as well.  This right is within your own home and pertains to adequate protection weapons.  You may believe a pungee pit should be used to protect your property or a high amperage high voltage electric shock on your welcome matt but I don't know of any lawyer that could keep you from prison if you actually had to use such a thing.  It's excess.  The state, under the 14th amendment can rule what is in excess for firearms.  It's usually under the reasoning of Public Safety.  They can determine that you need to be registered to carry a weapon (not open carry) on the street and then make it almost impossible for you to actually get the permit (case in point NYC) in a timely manner ( years or more) but they have to offer it.  They can't say you can't have a bazooka but they can make it almost impossible for you to get the permit to have one for various reasons.  They can't say that you can't own a fully Automatic Weapon of any kind but they can fix it so they are just plain unavailable by either making them too expensive (a real M-16-A-1 in junk condition starts at 15,000 dollars) or makes it almost impossible to comply with the storage requirements or makes it almost impossible to gain the proper permit to have it. (Again, NYC).  None of these methods are against the Second amendment and are well within the 14th amendment according to the many rulings by the Supreme Courts over the past decades.  They can rule that one type of weapon is in excess for home defense while others are not.  They can make a rule for an age limit on purchasing firearms and ammo.  They can limit the Mag Sizes.  They can outlaw the sale of the ability to use certain addons.  The list goes on and on.  And all have been upheld by the Supreme Court.  That pretty well means that they are Constitutional.  Maybe not moral but constitutional.  

What I hold is that we need to amend the 2nd amendment to remove the ambiguity that it has in today's world.  200 years ago, it was so much simpler.  But since 1850 (circa) we have long since outgrown it's simple wording.  One side says vehemently that we need to get rid of the 2nd amendment while another faction says we need to follow the second half word for word without any other thoughts.  Both sides will continue this war but people are getting killed or maybe needlessly in fear of their lives over this "Debate".  I won't really call it a debate.  Both sides are just yelling over the fence at each other and neither is listening.  What we need is a starting dialogue to get it settled and updated to todays standards.  It's not 1775 anymore and our weapons have outgrown the Muskets by far.  And our Population is more dense than it ever has been before.  There has to be a balance between the right to bear arms and Public Safety.  This means we have to stop the yelling while hold our hands over our ears and come to a decent set of decisions before another group (Politicians) that are less qualified does it for us.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Daryl Hunt said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the 2nd amendment was meant as the left says it was........
> 
> WHY THE HELL WOULD IT APPEAR IN THE BILL IF RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
> 
> Clue, it wouldn’t
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We aren't governed by any part of the Bill of Rights.  We are governed by the Constitutions of the United States and the many States.  As nice and lofty as the Bill of Rights is, it's just another piece of parchment, nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the Bill of Rights is part of the US Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, but the Bill of Rights is not the Constitution.  It's a seperate document that has no legal standings.  The Constitution did take it's first 10 amendments from it but the constitution is more than that and is the law of the land.  The Bill of Rights is just a supporting document.  Anyone states that we must follow the bill or rights over the Constitution doesn't get my support.
Click to expand...


Are you fucking kidding me? 

You shouldn't even be talking about the Constitution if you have no clue what it's about.

The Bill of Rights has as much legal standing as any other part of the Constitution. 

Learn something today.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Daryl Hunt said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> Applying 21st Century mores to 18th Century thinking is an exercise in vanity.
> 
> The militia is bound to the right.  The right is not bound to the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to follow the meaning of the 2nd amendment, the Militia is bound to the Government which should be neither right nor left, it just is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you really don'tunderstand the English language do you.  The Militia was a COUNTER to the government.  It wasn't bound to the government, it was a defense FROM the government.
> 
> "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
> - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
> 
> "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787
> 
> "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787
> 
> "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
> - Thomas Jefferson, _Commonplace Book_ (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
> 
> "The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824
> 
> "To disarm the people..._s the most effectual way to enslave them."
> - George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 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
> 
> "Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, *and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."*
> - James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And on and on and on.  The 2nd Amendment is the ultimate defender of ALL other Rights.  Or, as a much smarter person than I ever said, "the Bill of Rights is nine limitations on what government can do....and one, final option."_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say which government.  You assumed I meant the Federal Government while you are looking for a fight or just trying to be right.  You are kind of right.  But the 2nd amendment is what gives the States the right to have State Militias seperate from the Federal Forces and even the National Guard.  The State can raise an army if it feels the need.  And THAT is the Organized Militia, not the National Guard which can be Nationalized.  But the first half of the 2nd amendment is probably not necessary so much anymore and is primarily used by nutjobs that just want to run around the woods calling themselves Militias.  I call them potential Lynch Mobs.  But a few states still have State Guards and do use them in case of Emergency when one arises.   It really burns Femas drawers when the State Guard takes charge and Fema has to work for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try, but there is no Bill of Rights for any other government so you had to be talking about our Federal government.  and,  you are wrong.  The 2nd Amendment enumerates a Right of the individual to keep arms for their own PRIVATE defense.  It conveys no Rights to the State at all.  The State after all IS power.  The ridiculous claim that the 2nd gives the government the right to arm itself is simply stupid.  States have no Rights.  PEOPLE DO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's take  a look at the 2nd amendment and break it into two parts.
> 
> *A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,
> *
> This was put into place to prevent the Federal Government from becoming all powerful.  Our Founding Fathers were downright paranoid about this after just finishing a war with England.  In fact, they were so paranoid that they limited the Federals to no more than a 75,000 man standing army which would not be enough to even stand against one state's organized militia much less all of them.  But going into WWI, Congress inacted the National Guard Act of 1917 that allowed the Federal Government to fund the Guard Units in the States right around 120 days a year and the Feds could call up the Guard Units.  But they did add a provision that stated that the State could create a States Guard seperate from the National Guard where those in it that were not eligible to be called up could stay with the state guard.  States could have members that were in both Guard Organizations but in the even of federalization, those people would become Federal Troops.  Also, those that still had a commitment to their Military time (i.e. 4 years for some and 10 for others after they leave the active duty service) could serve with the state guard but would be federalized.  This means that states like Texas has a State Guard that is still very strong today which is mostly comprised of Local Police, Sheriffs, Texas Rangers, Fire Fighters and such that cannot be called up and can be used by the Texas Governor as the Old Guard used to be used for including in case of a Rogue Federal Government Uprising.  But the first half of the 2nd amendment really has been watered down and probably needs to be amended to keep it current as there is very little chance that the Federal Military would follow orders to suppress any given state.  You see, it's written into the UCMJ (the Military Constitution) to prevent that from happening.
> 
> 
> *the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> *
> We also need to include the 14th amendment as well.  This right is within your own home and pertains to adequate protection weapons.  You may believe a pungee pit should be used to protect your property or a high amperage high voltage electric shock on your welcome matt but I don't know of any lawyer that could keep you from prison if you actually had to use such a thing.  It's excess.  The state, under the 14th amendment can rule what is in excess for firearms.  It's usually under the reasoning of Public Safety.  They can determine that you need to be registered to carry a weapon (not open carry) on the street and then make it almost impossible for you to actually get the permit (case in point NYC) in a timely manner ( years or more) but they have to offer it.  They can't say you can't have a bazooka but they can make it almost impossible for you to get the permit to have one for various reasons.  They can't say that you can't own a fully Automatic Weapon of any kind but they can fix it so they are just plain unavailable by either making them too expensive (a real M-16-A-1 in junk condition starts at 15,000 dollars) or makes it almost impossible to comply with the storage requirements or makes it almost impossible to gain the proper permit to have it. (Again, NYC).  None of these methods are against the Second amendment and are well within the 14th amendment according to the many rulings by the Supreme Courts over the past decades.  They can rule that one type of weapon is in excess for home defense while others are not.  They can make a rule for an age limit on purchasing firearms and ammo.  They can limit the Mag Sizes.  They can outlaw the sale of the ability to use certain addons.  The list goes on and on.  And all have been upheld by the Supreme Court.  That pretty well means that they are Constitutional.  Maybe not moral but constitutional.
> 
> What I hold is that we need to amend the 2nd amendment to remove the ambiguity that it has in today's world.  200 years ago, it was so much simpler.  But since 1850 (circa) we have long since outgrown it's simple wording.  One side says vehemently that we need to get rid of the 2nd amendment while another faction says we need to follow the second half word for word without any other thoughts.  Both sides will continue this war but people are getting killed or maybe needlessly in fear of their lives over this "Debate".  I won't really call it a debate.  Both sides are just yelling over the fence at each other and neither is listening.  What we need is a starting dialogue to get it settled and updated to todays standards.  It's not 1775 anymore and our weapons have outgrown the Muskets by far.  And our Population is more dense than it ever has been before.  There has to be a balance between the right to bear arms and Public Safety.  This means we have to stop the yelling while hold our hands over our ears and come to a decent set of decisions before another group (Politicians) that are less qualified does it for us.
Click to expand...


You write a hell of a lot about something which you claim has no powers, but which you're talking about having powers.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

frigidweirdo said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the 2nd amendment was meant as the left says it was........
> 
> WHY THE HELL WOULD IT APPEAR IN THE BILL IF RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
> 
> Clue, it wouldn’t
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We aren't governed by any part of the Bill of Rights.  We are governed by the Constitutions of the United States and the many States.  As nice and lofty as the Bill of Rights is, it's just another piece of parchment, nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the Bill of Rights is part of the US Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, but the Bill of Rights is not the Constitution.  It's a seperate document that has no legal standings.  The Constitution did take it's first 10 amendments from it but the constitution is more than that and is the law of the land.  The Bill of Rights is just a supporting document.  Anyone states that we must follow the bill or rights over the Constitution doesn't get my support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you fucking kidding me?
> 
> You shouldn't even be talking about the Constitution if you have no clue what it's about.
> 
> The Bill of Rights has as much legal standing as any other part of the Constitution.
> 
> Learn something today.
Click to expand...


And when has a ruling been made on anyone using the Bill of Rights?  How about NEVER.  Now, the Constitution is another matter.  The Bill of Rights is only worth the paper it's printed on.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

frigidweirdo said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to follow the meaning of the 2nd amendment, the Militia is bound to the Government which should be neither right nor left, it just is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you really don'tunderstand the English language do you.  The Militia was a COUNTER to the government.  It wasn't bound to the government, it was a defense FROM the government.
> 
> "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
> - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
> 
> "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787
> 
> "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787
> 
> "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
> - Thomas Jefferson, _Commonplace Book_ (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
> 
> "The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824
> 
> "To disarm the people..._s the most effectual way to enslave them."
> - George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 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
> 
> "Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, *and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."*
> - James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And on and on and on.  The 2nd Amendment is the ultimate defender of ALL other Rights.  Or, as a much smarter person than I ever said, "the Bill of Rights is nine limitations on what government can do....and one, final option."_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say which government.  You assumed I meant the Federal Government while you are looking for a fight or just trying to be right.  You are kind of right.  But the 2nd amendment is what gives the States the right to have State Militias seperate from the Federal Forces and even the National Guard.  The State can raise an army if it feels the need.  And THAT is the Organized Militia, not the National Guard which can be Nationalized.  But the first half of the 2nd amendment is probably not necessary so much anymore and is primarily used by nutjobs that just want to run around the woods calling themselves Militias.  I call them potential Lynch Mobs.  But a few states still have State Guards and do use them in case of Emergency when one arises.   It really burns Femas drawers when the State Guard takes charge and Fema has to work for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try, but there is no Bill of Rights for any other government so you had to be talking about our Federal government.  and,  you are wrong.  The 2nd Amendment enumerates a Right of the individual to keep arms for their own PRIVATE defense.  It conveys no Rights to the State at all.  The State after all IS power.  The ridiculous claim that the 2nd gives the government the right to arm itself is simply stupid.  States have no Rights.  PEOPLE DO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's take  a look at the 2nd amendment and break it into two parts.
> 
> *A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,
> *
> This was put into place to prevent the Federal Government from becoming all powerful.  Our Founding Fathers were downright paranoid about this after just finishing a war with England.  In fact, they were so paranoid that they limited the Federals to no more than a 75,000 man standing army which would not be enough to even stand against one state's organized militia much less all of them.  But going into WWI, Congress inacted the National Guard Act of 1917 that allowed the Federal Government to fund the Guard Units in the States right around 120 days a year and the Feds could call up the Guard Units.  But they did add a provision that stated that the State could create a States Guard seperate from the National Guard where those in it that were not eligible to be called up could stay with the state guard.  States could have members that were in both Guard Organizations but in the even of federalization, those people would become Federal Troops.  Also, those that still had a commitment to their Military time (i.e. 4 years for some and 10 for others after they leave the active duty service) could serve with the state guard but would be federalized.  This means that states like Texas has a State Guard that is still very strong today which is mostly comprised of Local Police, Sheriffs, Texas Rangers, Fire Fighters and such that cannot be called up and can be used by the Texas Governor as the Old Guard used to be used for including in case of a Rogue Federal Government Uprising.  But the first half of the 2nd amendment really has been watered down and probably needs to be amended to keep it current as there is very little chance that the Federal Military would follow orders to suppress any given state.  You see, it's written into the UCMJ (the Military Constitution) to prevent that from happening.
> 
> 
> *the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> *
> We also need to include the 14th amendment as well.  This right is within your own home and pertains to adequate protection weapons.  You may believe a pungee pit should be used to protect your property or a high amperage high voltage electric shock on your welcome matt but I don't know of any lawyer that could keep you from prison if you actually had to use such a thing.  It's excess.  The state, under the 14th amendment can rule what is in excess for firearms.  It's usually under the reasoning of Public Safety.  They can determine that you need to be registered to carry a weapon (not open carry) on the street and then make it almost impossible for you to actually get the permit (case in point NYC) in a timely manner ( years or more) but they have to offer it.  They can't say you can't have a bazooka but they can make it almost impossible for you to get the permit to have one for various reasons.  They can't say that you can't own a fully Automatic Weapon of any kind but they can fix it so they are just plain unavailable by either making them too expensive (a real M-16-A-1 in junk condition starts at 15,000 dollars) or makes it almost impossible to comply with the storage requirements or makes it almost impossible to gain the proper permit to have it. (Again, NYC).  None of these methods are against the Second amendment and are well within the 14th amendment according to the many rulings by the Supreme Courts over the past decades.  They can rule that one type of weapon is in excess for home defense while others are not.  They can make a rule for an age limit on purchasing firearms and ammo.  They can limit the Mag Sizes.  They can outlaw the sale of the ability to use certain addons.  The list goes on and on.  And all have been upheld by the Supreme Court.  That pretty well means that they are Constitutional.  Maybe not moral but constitutional.
> 
> What I hold is that we need to amend the 2nd amendment to remove the ambiguity that it has in today's world.  200 years ago, it was so much simpler.  But since 1850 (circa) we have long since outgrown it's simple wording.  One side says vehemently that we need to get rid of the 2nd amendment while another faction says we need to follow the second half word for word without any other thoughts.  Both sides will continue this war but people are getting killed or maybe needlessly in fear of their lives over this "Debate".  I won't really call it a debate.  Both sides are just yelling over the fence at each other and neither is listening.  What we need is a starting dialogue to get it settled and updated to todays standards.  It's not 1775 anymore and our weapons have outgrown the Muskets by far.  And our Population is more dense than it ever has been before.  There has to be a balance between the right to bear arms and Public Safety.  This means we have to stop the yelling while hold our hands over our ears and come to a decent set of decisions before another group (Politicians) that are less qualified does it for us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You write a hell of a lot about something which you claim has no powers, but which you're talking about having powers.
Click to expand...


Well, make up your mind.  Does the Constitution have the power or not?  Is it the law of the land or not?  Should we follow it or not in it's entirety or not?   Or should we just pick and choose the parts we want to follow and disregard the rest.  Or do we just do whatever the hell we please.    But make up your mind.   

Do we continue to allow complete morons in office to keep writing the laws so badly that there is such a turmoil?  Guess you like it when they do it for you and it is such a mess.  Well, cupcake, I don't.  I want good laws instead of really stupid laws that make a mess out of everything it touches.  Since you seem to like the confusion and chaos then I guess we know where you stand.


----------



## Pop23

Daryl Hunt said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the 2nd amendment was meant as the left says it was........
> 
> WHY THE HELL WOULD IT APPEAR IN THE BILL IF RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
> 
> Clue, it wouldn’t
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We aren't governed by any part of the Bill of Rights.  We are governed by the Constitutions of the United States and the many States.  As nice and lofty as the Bill of Rights is, it's just another piece of parchment, nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the Bill of Rights is part of the US Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, but the Bill of Rights is not the Constitution.  It's a seperate document that has no legal standings.  The Constitution did take it's first 10 amendments from it but the constitution is more than that and is the law of the land.  The Bill of Rights is just a supporting document.  Anyone states that we must follow the bill or rights over the Constitution doesn't get my support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you fucking kidding me?
> 
> You shouldn't even be talking about the Constitution if you have no clue what it's about.
> 
> The Bill of Rights has as much legal standing as any other part of the Constitution.
> 
> Learn something today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And when has a ruling been made on anyone using the Bill of Rights?  How about NEVER.  Now, the Constitution is another matter.  The Bill of Rights is only worth the paper it's printed on.
Click to expand...


We get it Daryl. Your need to remove rights is obvious. Next, freedom of speech?


----------



## Pop23

Daryl Hunt said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you really don'tunderstand the English language do you.  The Militia was a COUNTER to the government.  It wasn't bound to the government, it was a defense FROM the government.
> 
> "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
> - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
> 
> "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787
> 
> "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787
> 
> "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
> - Thomas Jefferson, _Commonplace Book_ (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
> 
> "The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824
> 
> "To disarm the people..._s the most effectual way to enslave them."
> - George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 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
> 
> "Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, *and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."*
> - James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And on and on and on.  The 2nd Amendment is the ultimate defender of ALL other Rights.  Or, as a much smarter person than I ever said, "the Bill of Rights is nine limitations on what government can do....and one, final option."_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say which government.  You assumed I meant the Federal Government while you are looking for a fight or just trying to be right.  You are kind of right.  But the 2nd amendment is what gives the States the right to have State Militias seperate from the Federal Forces and even the National Guard.  The State can raise an army if it feels the need.  And THAT is the Organized Militia, not the National Guard which can be Nationalized.  But the first half of the 2nd amendment is probably not necessary so much anymore and is primarily used by nutjobs that just want to run around the woods calling themselves Militias.  I call them potential Lynch Mobs.  But a few states still have State Guards and do use them in case of Emergency when one arises.   It really burns Femas drawers when the State Guard takes charge and Fema has to work for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try, but there is no Bill of Rights for any other government so you had to be talking about our Federal government.  and,  you are wrong.  The 2nd Amendment enumerates a Right of the individual to keep arms for their own PRIVATE defense.  It conveys no Rights to the State at all.  The State after all IS power.  The ridiculous claim that the 2nd gives the government the right to arm itself is simply stupid.  States have no Rights.  PEOPLE DO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's take  a look at the 2nd amendment and break it into two parts.
> 
> *A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,
> *
> This was put into place to prevent the Federal Government from becoming all powerful.  Our Founding Fathers were downright paranoid about this after just finishing a war with England.  In fact, they were so paranoid that they limited the Federals to no more than a 75,000 man standing army which would not be enough to even stand against one state's organized militia much less all of them.  But going into WWI, Congress inacted the National Guard Act of 1917 that allowed the Federal Government to fund the Guard Units in the States right around 120 days a year and the Feds could call up the Guard Units.  But they did add a provision that stated that the State could create a States Guard seperate from the National Guard where those in it that were not eligible to be called up could stay with the state guard.  States could have members that were in both Guard Organizations but in the even of federalization, those people would become Federal Troops.  Also, those that still had a commitment to their Military time (i.e. 4 years for some and 10 for others after they leave the active duty service) could serve with the state guard but would be federalized.  This means that states like Texas has a State Guard that is still very strong today which is mostly comprised of Local Police, Sheriffs, Texas Rangers, Fire Fighters and such that cannot be called up and can be used by the Texas Governor as the Old Guard used to be used for including in case of a Rogue Federal Government Uprising.  But the first half of the 2nd amendment really has been watered down and probably needs to be amended to keep it current as there is very little chance that the Federal Military would follow orders to suppress any given state.  You see, it's written into the UCMJ (the Military Constitution) to prevent that from happening.
> 
> 
> *the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> *
> We also need to include the 14th amendment as well.  This right is within your own home and pertains to adequate protection weapons.  You may believe a pungee pit should be used to protect your property or a high amperage high voltage electric shock on your welcome matt but I don't know of any lawyer that could keep you from prison if you actually had to use such a thing.  It's excess.  The state, under the 14th amendment can rule what is in excess for firearms.  It's usually under the reasoning of Public Safety.  They can determine that you need to be registered to carry a weapon (not open carry) on the street and then make it almost impossible for you to actually get the permit (case in point NYC) in a timely manner ( years or more) but they have to offer it.  They can't say you can't have a bazooka but they can make it almost impossible for you to get the permit to have one for various reasons.  They can't say that you can't own a fully Automatic Weapon of any kind but they can fix it so they are just plain unavailable by either making them too expensive (a real M-16-A-1 in junk condition starts at 15,000 dollars) or makes it almost impossible to comply with the storage requirements or makes it almost impossible to gain the proper permit to have it. (Again, NYC).  None of these methods are against the Second amendment and are well within the 14th amendment according to the many rulings by the Supreme Courts over the past decades.  They can rule that one type of weapon is in excess for home defense while others are not.  They can make a rule for an age limit on purchasing firearms and ammo.  They can limit the Mag Sizes.  They can outlaw the sale of the ability to use certain addons.  The list goes on and on.  And all have been upheld by the Supreme Court.  That pretty well means that they are Constitutional.  Maybe not moral but constitutional.
> 
> What I hold is that we need to amend the 2nd amendment to remove the ambiguity that it has in today's world.  200 years ago, it was so much simpler.  But since 1850 (circa) we have long since outgrown it's simple wording.  One side says vehemently that we need to get rid of the 2nd amendment while another faction says we need to follow the second half word for word without any other thoughts.  Both sides will continue this war but people are getting killed or maybe needlessly in fear of their lives over this "Debate".  I won't really call it a debate.  Both sides are just yelling over the fence at each other and neither is listening.  What we need is a starting dialogue to get it settled and updated to todays standards.  It's not 1775 anymore and our weapons have outgrown the Muskets by far.  And our Population is more dense than it ever has been before.  There has to be a balance between the right to bear arms and Public Safety.  This means we have to stop the yelling while hold our hands over our ears and come to a decent set of decisions before another group (Politicians) that are less qualified does it for us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You write a hell of a lot about something which you claim has no powers, but which you're talking about having powers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, make up your mind.  Does the Constitution have the power or not?  Is it the law of the land or not?  Should we follow it or not in it's entirety or not?   Or should we just pick and choose the parts we want to follow and disregard the rest.  Or do we just do whatever the hell we please.    But make up your mind.
Click to expand...


You talk a lot, but rarely listen.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Daryl Hunt said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the 2nd amendment was meant as the left says it was........
> 
> WHY THE HELL WOULD IT APPEAR IN THE BILL IF RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
> 
> Clue, it wouldn’t
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We aren't governed by any part of the Bill of Rights.  We are governed by the Constitutions of the United States and the many States.  As nice and lofty as the Bill of Rights is, it's just another piece of parchment, nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the Bill of Rights is part of the US Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, but the Bill of Rights is not the Constitution.  It's a seperate document that has no legal standings.  The Constitution did take it's first 10 amendments from it but the constitution is more than that and is the law of the land.  The Bill of Rights is just a supporting document.  Anyone states that we must follow the bill or rights over the Constitution doesn't get my support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you fucking kidding me?
> 
> You shouldn't even be talking about the Constitution if you have no clue what it's about.
> 
> The Bill of Rights has as much legal standing as any other part of the Constitution.
> 
> Learn something today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And when has a ruling been made on anyone using the Bill of Rights?  How about NEVER.  Now, the Constitution is another matter.  The Bill of Rights is only worth the paper it's printed on.
Click to expand...


Your argument isn't worth anything.

When has a ruling been made on anyone using the Bill of Rights? Do you even know what the Bill of Rights does?

No, probably not, and I really can't be bothered to teach you elementary stuff you should already know. You can go look it up.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Pop23 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say which government.  You assumed I meant the Federal Government while you are looking for a fight or just trying to be right.  You are kind of right.  But the 2nd amendment is what gives the States the right to have State Militias seperate from the Federal Forces and even the National Guard.  The State can raise an army if it feels the need.  And THAT is the Organized Militia, not the National Guard which can be Nationalized.  But the first half of the 2nd amendment is probably not necessary so much anymore and is primarily used by nutjobs that just want to run around the woods calling themselves Militias.  I call them potential Lynch Mobs.  But a few states still have State Guards and do use them in case of Emergency when one arises.   It really burns Femas drawers when the State Guard takes charge and Fema has to work for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try, but there is no Bill of Rights for any other government so you had to be talking about our Federal government.  and,  you are wrong.  The 2nd Amendment enumerates a Right of the individual to keep arms for their own PRIVATE defense.  It conveys no Rights to the State at all.  The State after all IS power.  The ridiculous claim that the 2nd gives the government the right to arm itself is simply stupid.  States have no Rights.  PEOPLE DO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's take  a look at the 2nd amendment and break it into two parts.
> 
> *A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,
> *
> This was put into place to prevent the Federal Government from becoming all powerful.  Our Founding Fathers were downright paranoid about this after just finishing a war with England.  In fact, they were so paranoid that they limited the Federals to no more than a 75,000 man standing army which would not be enough to even stand against one state's organized militia much less all of them.  But going into WWI, Congress inacted the National Guard Act of 1917 that allowed the Federal Government to fund the Guard Units in the States right around 120 days a year and the Feds could call up the Guard Units.  But they did add a provision that stated that the State could create a States Guard seperate from the National Guard where those in it that were not eligible to be called up could stay with the state guard.  States could have members that were in both Guard Organizations but in the even of federalization, those people would become Federal Troops.  Also, those that still had a commitment to their Military time (i.e. 4 years for some and 10 for others after they leave the active duty service) could serve with the state guard but would be federalized.  This means that states like Texas has a State Guard that is still very strong today which is mostly comprised of Local Police, Sheriffs, Texas Rangers, Fire Fighters and such that cannot be called up and can be used by the Texas Governor as the Old Guard used to be used for including in case of a Rogue Federal Government Uprising.  But the first half of the 2nd amendment really has been watered down and probably needs to be amended to keep it current as there is very little chance that the Federal Military would follow orders to suppress any given state.  You see, it's written into the UCMJ (the Military Constitution) to prevent that from happening.
> 
> 
> *the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> *
> We also need to include the 14th amendment as well.  This right is within your own home and pertains to adequate protection weapons.  You may believe a pungee pit should be used to protect your property or a high amperage high voltage electric shock on your welcome matt but I don't know of any lawyer that could keep you from prison if you actually had to use such a thing.  It's excess.  The state, under the 14th amendment can rule what is in excess for firearms.  It's usually under the reasoning of Public Safety.  They can determine that you need to be registered to carry a weapon (not open carry) on the street and then make it almost impossible for you to actually get the permit (case in point NYC) in a timely manner ( years or more) but they have to offer it.  They can't say you can't have a bazooka but they can make it almost impossible for you to get the permit to have one for various reasons.  They can't say that you can't own a fully Automatic Weapon of any kind but they can fix it so they are just plain unavailable by either making them too expensive (a real M-16-A-1 in junk condition starts at 15,000 dollars) or makes it almost impossible to comply with the storage requirements or makes it almost impossible to gain the proper permit to have it. (Again, NYC).  None of these methods are against the Second amendment and are well within the 14th amendment according to the many rulings by the Supreme Courts over the past decades.  They can rule that one type of weapon is in excess for home defense while others are not.  They can make a rule for an age limit on purchasing firearms and ammo.  They can limit the Mag Sizes.  They can outlaw the sale of the ability to use certain addons.  The list goes on and on.  And all have been upheld by the Supreme Court.  That pretty well means that they are Constitutional.  Maybe not moral but constitutional.
> 
> What I hold is that we need to amend the 2nd amendment to remove the ambiguity that it has in today's world.  200 years ago, it was so much simpler.  But since 1850 (circa) we have long since outgrown it's simple wording.  One side says vehemently that we need to get rid of the 2nd amendment while another faction says we need to follow the second half word for word without any other thoughts.  Both sides will continue this war but people are getting killed or maybe needlessly in fear of their lives over this "Debate".  I won't really call it a debate.  Both sides are just yelling over the fence at each other and neither is listening.  What we need is a starting dialogue to get it settled and updated to todays standards.  It's not 1775 anymore and our weapons have outgrown the Muskets by far.  And our Population is more dense than it ever has been before.  There has to be a balance between the right to bear arms and Public Safety.  This means we have to stop the yelling while hold our hands over our ears and come to a decent set of decisions before another group (Politicians) that are less qualified does it for us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You write a hell of a lot about something which you claim has no powers, but which you're talking about having powers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, make up your mind.  Does the Constitution have the power or not?  Is it the law of the land or not?  Should we follow it or not in it's entirety or not?   Or should we just pick and choose the parts we want to follow and disregard the rest.  Or do we just do whatever the hell we please.    But make up your mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You talk a lot, but rarely listen.
Click to expand...


Thank you for making my point, cupcake.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Daryl Hunt said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you really don'tunderstand the English language do you.  The Militia was a COUNTER to the government.  It wasn't bound to the government, it was a defense FROM the government.
> 
> "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
> - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
> 
> "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787
> 
> "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787
> 
> "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
> - Thomas Jefferson, _Commonplace Book_ (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
> 
> "The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824
> 
> "To disarm the people..._s the most effectual way to enslave them."
> - George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 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
> 
> "Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, *and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."*
> - James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And on and on and on.  The 2nd Amendment is the ultimate defender of ALL other Rights.  Or, as a much smarter person than I ever said, "the Bill of Rights is nine limitations on what government can do....and one, final option."_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say which government.  You assumed I meant the Federal Government while you are looking for a fight or just trying to be right.  You are kind of right.  But the 2nd amendment is what gives the States the right to have State Militias seperate from the Federal Forces and even the National Guard.  The State can raise an army if it feels the need.  And THAT is the Organized Militia, not the National Guard which can be Nationalized.  But the first half of the 2nd amendment is probably not necessary so much anymore and is primarily used by nutjobs that just want to run around the woods calling themselves Militias.  I call them potential Lynch Mobs.  But a few states still have State Guards and do use them in case of Emergency when one arises.   It really burns Femas drawers when the State Guard takes charge and Fema has to work for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try, but there is no Bill of Rights for any other government so you had to be talking about our Federal government.  and,  you are wrong.  The 2nd Amendment enumerates a Right of the individual to keep arms for their own PRIVATE defense.  It conveys no Rights to the State at all.  The State after all IS power.  The ridiculous claim that the 2nd gives the government the right to arm itself is simply stupid.  States have no Rights.  PEOPLE DO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's take  a look at the 2nd amendment and break it into two parts.
> 
> *A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,
> *
> This was put into place to prevent the Federal Government from becoming all powerful.  Our Founding Fathers were downright paranoid about this after just finishing a war with England.  In fact, they were so paranoid that they limited the Federals to no more than a 75,000 man standing army which would not be enough to even stand against one state's organized militia much less all of them.  But going into WWI, Congress inacted the National Guard Act of 1917 that allowed the Federal Government to fund the Guard Units in the States right around 120 days a year and the Feds could call up the Guard Units.  But they did add a provision that stated that the State could create a States Guard seperate from the National Guard where those in it that were not eligible to be called up could stay with the state guard.  States could have members that were in both Guard Organizations but in the even of federalization, those people would become Federal Troops.  Also, those that still had a commitment to their Military time (i.e. 4 years for some and 10 for others after they leave the active duty service) could serve with the state guard but would be federalized.  This means that states like Texas has a State Guard that is still very strong today which is mostly comprised of Local Police, Sheriffs, Texas Rangers, Fire Fighters and such that cannot be called up and can be used by the Texas Governor as the Old Guard used to be used for including in case of a Rogue Federal Government Uprising.  But the first half of the 2nd amendment really has been watered down and probably needs to be amended to keep it current as there is very little chance that the Federal Military would follow orders to suppress any given state.  You see, it's written into the UCMJ (the Military Constitution) to prevent that from happening.
> 
> 
> *the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> *
> We also need to include the 14th amendment as well.  This right is within your own home and pertains to adequate protection weapons.  You may believe a pungee pit should be used to protect your property or a high amperage high voltage electric shock on your welcome matt but I don't know of any lawyer that could keep you from prison if you actually had to use such a thing.  It's excess.  The state, under the 14th amendment can rule what is in excess for firearms.  It's usually under the reasoning of Public Safety.  They can determine that you need to be registered to carry a weapon (not open carry) on the street and then make it almost impossible for you to actually get the permit (case in point NYC) in a timely manner ( years or more) but they have to offer it.  They can't say you can't have a bazooka but they can make it almost impossible for you to get the permit to have one for various reasons.  They can't say that you can't own a fully Automatic Weapon of any kind but they can fix it so they are just plain unavailable by either making them too expensive (a real M-16-A-1 in junk condition starts at 15,000 dollars) or makes it almost impossible to comply with the storage requirements or makes it almost impossible to gain the proper permit to have it. (Again, NYC).  None of these methods are against the Second amendment and are well within the 14th amendment according to the many rulings by the Supreme Courts over the past decades.  They can rule that one type of weapon is in excess for home defense while others are not.  They can make a rule for an age limit on purchasing firearms and ammo.  They can limit the Mag Sizes.  They can outlaw the sale of the ability to use certain addons.  The list goes on and on.  And all have been upheld by the Supreme Court.  That pretty well means that they are Constitutional.  Maybe not moral but constitutional.
> 
> What I hold is that we need to amend the 2nd amendment to remove the ambiguity that it has in today's world.  200 years ago, it was so much simpler.  But since 1850 (circa) we have long since outgrown it's simple wording.  One side says vehemently that we need to get rid of the 2nd amendment while another faction says we need to follow the second half word for word without any other thoughts.  Both sides will continue this war but people are getting killed or maybe needlessly in fear of their lives over this "Debate".  I won't really call it a debate.  Both sides are just yelling over the fence at each other and neither is listening.  What we need is a starting dialogue to get it settled and updated to todays standards.  It's not 1775 anymore and our weapons have outgrown the Muskets by far.  And our Population is more dense than it ever has been before.  There has to be a balance between the right to bear arms and Public Safety.  This means we have to stop the yelling while hold our hands over our ears and come to a decent set of decisions before another group (Politicians) that are less qualified does it for us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You write a hell of a lot about something which you claim has no powers, but which you're talking about having powers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, make up your mind.  Does the Constitution have the power or not?  Is it the law of the land or not?  Should we follow it or not in it's entirety or not?   Or should we just pick and choose the parts we want to follow and disregard the rest.  Or do we just do whatever the hell we please.    But make up your mind.
> 
> Do we continue to allow complete morons in office to keep writing the laws so badly that there is such a turmoil?  Guess you like it when they do it for you and it is such a mess.  Well, cupcake, I don't.  I want good laws instead of really stupid laws that make a mess out of everything it touches.  Since you seem to like the confusion and chaos then I guess we know where you stand.
Click to expand...


My mind is made up, your mind however seems rather lacking in knowledge. When you've gone through Constitution 101, come back and we can talk without me having to explain simple things to you.


----------



## Pop23

Daryl Hunt said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you really don'tunderstand the English language do you.  The Militia was a COUNTER to the government.  It wasn't bound to the government, it was a defense FROM the government.
> 
> "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
> - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
> 
> "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787
> 
> "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787
> 
> "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
> - Thomas Jefferson, _Commonplace Book_ (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
> 
> "The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824
> 
> "To disarm the people..._s the most effectual way to enslave them."
> - George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 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
> 
> "Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, *and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."*
> - James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And on and on and on.  The 2nd Amendment is the ultimate defender of ALL other Rights.  Or, as a much smarter person than I ever said, "the Bill of Rights is nine limitations on what government can do....and one, final option."_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say which government.  You assumed I meant the Federal Government while you are looking for a fight or just trying to be right.  You are kind of right.  But the 2nd amendment is what gives the States the right to have State Militias seperate from the Federal Forces and even the National Guard.  The State can raise an army if it feels the need.  And THAT is the Organized Militia, not the National Guard which can be Nationalized.  But the first half of the 2nd amendment is probably not necessary so much anymore and is primarily used by nutjobs that just want to run around the woods calling themselves Militias.  I call them potential Lynch Mobs.  But a few states still have State Guards and do use them in case of Emergency when one arises.   It really burns Femas drawers when the State Guard takes charge and Fema has to work for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try, but there is no Bill of Rights for any other government so you had to be talking about our Federal government.  and,  you are wrong.  The 2nd Amendment enumerates a Right of the individual to keep arms for their own PRIVATE defense.  It conveys no Rights to the State at all.  The State after all IS power.  The ridiculous claim that the 2nd gives the government the right to arm itself is simply stupid.  States have no Rights.  PEOPLE DO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's take  a look at the 2nd amendment and break it into two parts.
> 
> *A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,
> *
> This was put into place to prevent the Federal Government from becoming all powerful.  Our Founding Fathers were downright paranoid about this after just finishing a war with England.  In fact, they were so paranoid that they limited the Federals to no more than a 75,000 man standing army which would not be enough to even stand against one state's organized militia much less all of them.  But going into WWI, Congress inacted the National Guard Act of 1917 that allowed the Federal Government to fund the Guard Units in the States right around 120 days a year and the Feds could call up the Guard Units.  But they did add a provision that stated that the State could create a States Guard seperate from the National Guard where those in it that were not eligible to be called up could stay with the state guard.  States could have members that were in both Guard Organizations but in the even of federalization, those people would become Federal Troops.  Also, those that still had a commitment to their Military time (i.e. 4 years for some and 10 for others after they leave the active duty service) could serve with the state guard but would be federalized.  This means that states like Texas has a State Guard that is still very strong today which is mostly comprised of Local Police, Sheriffs, Texas Rangers, Fire Fighters and such that cannot be called up and can be used by the Texas Governor as the Old Guard used to be used for including in case of a Rogue Federal Government Uprising.  But the first half of the 2nd amendment really has been watered down and probably needs to be amended to keep it current as there is very little chance that the Federal Military would follow orders to suppress any given state.  You see, it's written into the UCMJ (the Military Constitution) to prevent that from happening.
> 
> 
> *the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> *
> We also need to include the 14th amendment as well.  This right is within your own home and pertains to adequate protection weapons.  You may believe a pungee pit should be used to protect your property or a high amperage high voltage electric shock on your welcome matt but I don't know of any lawyer that could keep you from prison if you actually had to use such a thing.  It's excess.  The state, under the 14th amendment can rule what is in excess for firearms.  It's usually under the reasoning of Public Safety.  They can determine that you need to be registered to carry a weapon (not open carry) on the street and then make it almost impossible for you to actually get the permit (case in point NYC) in a timely manner ( years or more) but they have to offer it.  They can't say you can't have a bazooka but they can make it almost impossible for you to get the permit to have one for various reasons.  They can't say that you can't own a fully Automatic Weapon of any kind but they can fix it so they are just plain unavailable by either making them too expensive (a real M-16-A-1 in junk condition starts at 15,000 dollars) or makes it almost impossible to comply with the storage requirements or makes it almost impossible to gain the proper permit to have it. (Again, NYC).  None of these methods are against the Second amendment and are well within the 14th amendment according to the many rulings by the Supreme Courts over the past decades.  They can rule that one type of weapon is in excess for home defense while others are not.  They can make a rule for an age limit on purchasing firearms and ammo.  They can limit the Mag Sizes.  They can outlaw the sale of the ability to use certain addons.  The list goes on and on.  And all have been upheld by the Supreme Court.  That pretty well means that they are Constitutional.  Maybe not moral but constitutional.
> 
> What I hold is that we need to amend the 2nd amendment to remove the ambiguity that it has in today's world.  200 years ago, it was so much simpler.  But since 1850 (circa) we have long since outgrown it's simple wording.  One side says vehemently that we need to get rid of the 2nd amendment while another faction says we need to follow the second half word for word without any other thoughts.  Both sides will continue this war but people are getting killed or maybe needlessly in fear of their lives over this "Debate".  I won't really call it a debate.  Both sides are just yelling over the fence at each other and neither is listening.  What we need is a starting dialogue to get it settled and updated to todays standards.  It's not 1775 anymore and our weapons have outgrown the Muskets by far.  And our Population is more dense than it ever has been before.  There has to be a balance between the right to bear arms and Public Safety.  This means we have to stop the yelling while hold our hands over our ears and come to a decent set of decisions before another group (Politicians) that are less qualified does it for us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You write a hell of a lot about something which you claim has no powers, but which you're talking about having powers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, make up your mind.  Does the Constitution have the power or not?  Is it the law of the land or not?  Should we follow it or not in it's entirety or not?   Or should we just pick and choose the parts we want to follow and disregard the rest.  Or do we just do whatever the hell we please.    But make up your mind.
> 
> Do we continue to allow complete morons in office to keep writing the laws so badly that there is such a turmoil?  Guess you like it when they do it for you and it is such a mess.  Well, cupcake, I don't.  I want good laws instead of really stupid laws that make a mess out of everything it touches.  Since you seem to like the confusion and chaos then I guess we know where you stand.
Click to expand...


We passed a very good law against Murder. Criminals ignore even the best written laws. 

What the hell is your point?


----------



## Daryl Hunt

frigidweirdo said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> We aren't governed by any part of the Bill of Rights.  We are governed by the Constitutions of the United States and the many States.  As nice and lofty as the Bill of Rights is, it's just another piece of parchment, nothing more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the Bill of Rights is part of the US Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, but the Bill of Rights is not the Constitution.  It's a seperate document that has no legal standings.  The Constitution did take it's first 10 amendments from it but the constitution is more than that and is the law of the land.  The Bill of Rights is just a supporting document.  Anyone states that we must follow the bill or rights over the Constitution doesn't get my support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you fucking kidding me?
> 
> You shouldn't even be talking about the Constitution if you have no clue what it's about.
> 
> The Bill of Rights has as much legal standing as any other part of the Constitution.
> 
> Learn something today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And when has a ruling been made on anyone using the Bill of Rights?  How about NEVER.  Now, the Constitution is another matter.  The Bill of Rights is only worth the paper it's printed on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your argument isn't worth anything.
> 
> When has a ruling been made on anyone using the Bill of Rights? Do you even know what the Bill of Rights does?
> 
> No, probably not, and I really can't be bothered to teach you elementary stuff you should already know. You can go look it up.
Click to expand...


It sits in the Library of Congress on display and awes people like you.  I would much rather view a living document like the Constitution of the United States instead of something that is just a piece of parchment or paper.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

frigidweirdo said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say which government.  You assumed I meant the Federal Government while you are looking for a fight or just trying to be right.  You are kind of right.  But the 2nd amendment is what gives the States the right to have State Militias seperate from the Federal Forces and even the National Guard.  The State can raise an army if it feels the need.  And THAT is the Organized Militia, not the National Guard which can be Nationalized.  But the first half of the 2nd amendment is probably not necessary so much anymore and is primarily used by nutjobs that just want to run around the woods calling themselves Militias.  I call them potential Lynch Mobs.  But a few states still have State Guards and do use them in case of Emergency when one arises.   It really burns Femas drawers when the State Guard takes charge and Fema has to work for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for making my point, cupcake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try, but there is no Bill of Rights for any other government so you had to be talking about our Federal government.  and,  you are wrong.  The 2nd Amendment enumerates a Right of the individual to keep arms for their own PRIVATE defense.  It conveys no Rights to the State at all.  The State after all IS power.  The ridiculous claim that the 2nd gives the government the right to arm itself is simply stupid.  States have no Rights.  PEOPLE DO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's take  a look at the 2nd amendment and break it into two parts.
> 
> *A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,
> *
> This was put into place to prevent the Federal Government from becoming all powerful.  Our Founding Fathers were downright paranoid about this after just finishing a war with England.  In fact, they were so paranoid that they limited the Federals to no more than a 75,000 man standing army which would not be enough to even stand against one state's organized militia much less all of them.  But going into WWI, Congress inacted the National Guard Act of 1917 that allowed the Federal Government to fund the Guard Units in the States right around 120 days a year and the Feds could call up the Guard Units.  But they did add a provision that stated that the State could create a States Guard seperate from the National Guard where those in it that were not eligible to be called up could stay with the state guard.  States could have members that were in both Guard Organizations but in the even of federalization, those people would become Federal Troops.  Also, those that still had a commitment to their Military time (i.e. 4 years for some and 10 for others after they leave the active duty service) could serve with the state guard but would be federalized.  This means that states like Texas has a State Guard that is still very strong today which is mostly comprised of Local Police, Sheriffs, Texas Rangers, Fire Fighters and such that cannot be called up and can be used by the Texas Governor as the Old Guard used to be used for including in case of a Rogue Federal Government Uprising.  But the first half of the 2nd amendment really has been watered down and probably needs to be amended to keep it current as there is very little chance that the Federal Military would follow orders to suppress any given state.  You see, it's written into the UCMJ (the Military Constitution) to prevent that from happening.
> 
> 
> *the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> *
> We also need to include the 14th amendment as well.  This right is within your own home and pertains to adequate protection weapons.  You may believe a pungee pit should be used to protect your property or a high amperage high voltage electric shock on your welcome matt but I don't know of any lawyer that could keep you from prison if you actually had to use such a thing.  It's excess.  The state, under the 14th amendment can rule what is in excess for firearms.  It's usually under the reasoning of Public Safety.  They can determine that you need to be registered to carry a weapon (not open carry) on the street and then make it almost impossible for you to actually get the permit (case in point NYC) in a timely manner ( years or more) but they have to offer it.  They can't say you can't have a bazooka but they can make it almost impossible for you to get the permit to have one for various reasons.  They can't say that you can't own a fully Automatic Weapon of any kind but they can fix it so they are just plain unavailable by either making them too expensive (a real M-16-A-1 in junk condition starts at 15,000 dollars) or makes it almost impossible to comply with the storage requirements or makes it almost impossible to gain the proper permit to have it. (Again, NYC).  None of these methods are against the Second amendment and are well within the 14th amendment according to the many rulings by the Supreme Courts over the past decades.  They can rule that one type of weapon is in excess for home defense while others are not.  They can make a rule for an age limit on purchasing firearms and ammo.  They can limit the Mag Sizes.  They can outlaw the sale of the ability to use certain addons.  The list goes on and on.  And all have been upheld by the Supreme Court.  That pretty well means that they are Constitutional.  Maybe not moral but constitutional.
> 
> What I hold is that we need to amend the 2nd amendment to remove the ambiguity that it has in today's world.  200 years ago, it was so much simpler.  But since 1850 (circa) we have long since outgrown it's simple wording.  One side says vehemently that we need to get rid of the 2nd amendment while another faction says we need to follow the second half word for word without any other thoughts.  Both sides will continue this war but people are getting killed or maybe needlessly in fear of their lives over this "Debate".  I won't really call it a debate.  Both sides are just yelling over the fence at each other and neither is listening.  What we need is a starting dialogue to get it settled and updated to todays standards.  It's not 1775 anymore and our weapons have outgrown the Muskets by far.  And our Population is more dense than it ever has been before.  There has to be a balance between the right to bear arms and Public Safety.  This means we have to stop the yelling while hold our hands over our ears and come to a decent set of decisions before another group (Politicians) that are less qualified does it for us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You write a hell of a lot about something which you claim has no powers, but which you're talking about having powers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, make up your mind.  Does the Constitution have the power or not?  Is it the law of the land or not?  Should we follow it or not in it's entirety or not?   Or should we just pick and choose the parts we want to follow and disregard the rest.  Or do we just do whatever the hell we please.    But make up your mind.
> 
> Do we continue to allow complete morons in office to keep writing the laws so badly that there is such a turmoil?  Guess you like it when they do it for you and it is such a mess.  Well, cupcake, I don't.  I want good laws instead of really stupid laws that make a mess out of everything it touches.  Since you seem to like the confusion and chaos then I guess we know where you stand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My mind is made up, your mind however seems rather lacking in knowledge. When you've gone through Constitution 101, come back and we can talk without me having to explain simple things to you.
Click to expand...


----------



## Pop23

Daryl Hunt said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try, but there is no Bill of Rights for any other government so you had to be talking about our Federal government.  and,  you are wrong.  The 2nd Amendment enumerates a Right of the individual to keep arms for their own PRIVATE defense.  It conveys no Rights to the State at all.  The State after all IS power.  The ridiculous claim that the 2nd gives the government the right to arm itself is simply stupid.  States have no Rights.  PEOPLE DO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's take  a look at the 2nd amendment and break it into two parts.
> 
> *A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,
> *
> This was put into place to prevent the Federal Government from becoming all powerful.  Our Founding Fathers were downright paranoid about this after just finishing a war with England.  In fact, they were so paranoid that they limited the Federals to no more than a 75,000 man standing army which would not be enough to even stand against one state's organized militia much less all of them.  But going into WWI, Congress inacted the National Guard Act of 1917 that allowed the Federal Government to fund the Guard Units in the States right around 120 days a year and the Feds could call up the Guard Units.  But they did add a provision that stated that the State could create a States Guard seperate from the National Guard where those in it that were not eligible to be called up could stay with the state guard.  States could have members that were in both Guard Organizations but in the even of federalization, those people would become Federal Troops.  Also, those that still had a commitment to their Military time (i.e. 4 years for some and 10 for others after they leave the active duty service) could serve with the state guard but would be federalized.  This means that states like Texas has a State Guard that is still very strong today which is mostly comprised of Local Police, Sheriffs, Texas Rangers, Fire Fighters and such that cannot be called up and can be used by the Texas Governor as the Old Guard used to be used for including in case of a Rogue Federal Government Uprising.  But the first half of the 2nd amendment really has been watered down and probably needs to be amended to keep it current as there is very little chance that the Federal Military would follow orders to suppress any given state.  You see, it's written into the UCMJ (the Military Constitution) to prevent that from happening.
> 
> 
> *the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> *
> We also need to include the 14th amendment as well.  This right is within your own home and pertains to adequate protection weapons.  You may believe a pungee pit should be used to protect your property or a high amperage high voltage electric shock on your welcome matt but I don't know of any lawyer that could keep you from prison if you actually had to use such a thing.  It's excess.  The state, under the 14th amendment can rule what is in excess for firearms.  It's usually under the reasoning of Public Safety.  They can determine that you need to be registered to carry a weapon (not open carry) on the street and then make it almost impossible for you to actually get the permit (case in point NYC) in a timely manner ( years or more) but they have to offer it.  They can't say you can't have a bazooka but they can make it almost impossible for you to get the permit to have one for various reasons.  They can't say that you can't own a fully Automatic Weapon of any kind but they can fix it so they are just plain unavailable by either making them too expensive (a real M-16-A-1 in junk condition starts at 15,000 dollars) or makes it almost impossible to comply with the storage requirements or makes it almost impossible to gain the proper permit to have it. (Again, NYC).  None of these methods are against the Second amendment and are well within the 14th amendment according to the many rulings by the Supreme Courts over the past decades.  They can rule that one type of weapon is in excess for home defense while others are not.  They can make a rule for an age limit on purchasing firearms and ammo.  They can limit the Mag Sizes.  They can outlaw the sale of the ability to use certain addons.  The list goes on and on.  And all have been upheld by the Supreme Court.  That pretty well means that they are Constitutional.  Maybe not moral but constitutional.
> 
> What I hold is that we need to amend the 2nd amendment to remove the ambiguity that it has in today's world.  200 years ago, it was so much simpler.  But since 1850 (circa) we have long since outgrown it's simple wording.  One side says vehemently that we need to get rid of the 2nd amendment while another faction says we need to follow the second half word for word without any other thoughts.  Both sides will continue this war but people are getting killed or maybe needlessly in fear of their lives over this "Debate".  I won't really call it a debate.  Both sides are just yelling over the fence at each other and neither is listening.  What we need is a starting dialogue to get it settled and updated to todays standards.  It's not 1775 anymore and our weapons have outgrown the Muskets by far.  And our Population is more dense than it ever has been before.  There has to be a balance between the right to bear arms and Public Safety.  This means we have to stop the yelling while hold our hands over our ears and come to a decent set of decisions before another group (Politicians) that are less qualified does it for us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You write a hell of a lot about something which you claim has no powers, but which you're talking about having powers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, make up your mind.  Does the Constitution have the power or not?  Is it the law of the land or not?  Should we follow it or not in it's entirety or not?   Or should we just pick and choose the parts we want to follow and disregard the rest.  Or do we just do whatever the hell we please.    But make up your mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You talk a lot, but rarely listen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for making my point, cupcake.
Click to expand...


You think I did? I didn’t, but you do ramble, dontcha petunia


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Pop23 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say which government.  You assumed I meant the Federal Government while you are looking for a fight or just trying to be right.  You are kind of right.  But the 2nd amendment is what gives the States the right to have State Militias seperate from the Federal Forces and even the National Guard.  The State can raise an army if it feels the need.  And THAT is the Organized Militia, not the National Guard which can be Nationalized.  But the first half of the 2nd amendment is probably not necessary so much anymore and is primarily used by nutjobs that just want to run around the woods calling themselves Militias.  I call them potential Lynch Mobs.  But a few states still have State Guards and do use them in case of Emergency when one arises.   It really burns Femas drawers when the State Guard takes charge and Fema has to work for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try, but there is no Bill of Rights for any other government so you had to be talking about our Federal government.  and,  you are wrong.  The 2nd Amendment enumerates a Right of the individual to keep arms for their own PRIVATE defense.  It conveys no Rights to the State at all.  The State after all IS power.  The ridiculous claim that the 2nd gives the government the right to arm itself is simply stupid.  States have no Rights.  PEOPLE DO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's take  a look at the 2nd amendment and break it into two parts.
> 
> *A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,
> *
> This was put into place to prevent the Federal Government from becoming all powerful.  Our Founding Fathers were downright paranoid about this after just finishing a war with England.  In fact, they were so paranoid that they limited the Federals to no more than a 75,000 man standing army which would not be enough to even stand against one state's organized militia much less all of them.  But going into WWI, Congress inacted the National Guard Act of 1917 that allowed the Federal Government to fund the Guard Units in the States right around 120 days a year and the Feds could call up the Guard Units.  But they did add a provision that stated that the State could create a States Guard seperate from the National Guard where those in it that were not eligible to be called up could stay with the state guard.  States could have members that were in both Guard Organizations but in the even of federalization, those people would become Federal Troops.  Also, those that still had a commitment to their Military time (i.e. 4 years for some and 10 for others after they leave the active duty service) could serve with the state guard but would be federalized.  This means that states like Texas has a State Guard that is still very strong today which is mostly comprised of Local Police, Sheriffs, Texas Rangers, Fire Fighters and such that cannot be called up and can be used by the Texas Governor as the Old Guard used to be used for including in case of a Rogue Federal Government Uprising.  But the first half of the 2nd amendment really has been watered down and probably needs to be amended to keep it current as there is very little chance that the Federal Military would follow orders to suppress any given state.  You see, it's written into the UCMJ (the Military Constitution) to prevent that from happening.
> 
> 
> *the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> *
> We also need to include the 14th amendment as well.  This right is within your own home and pertains to adequate protection weapons.  You may believe a pungee pit should be used to protect your property or a high amperage high voltage electric shock on your welcome matt but I don't know of any lawyer that could keep you from prison if you actually had to use such a thing.  It's excess.  The state, under the 14th amendment can rule what is in excess for firearms.  It's usually under the reasoning of Public Safety.  They can determine that you need to be registered to carry a weapon (not open carry) on the street and then make it almost impossible for you to actually get the permit (case in point NYC) in a timely manner ( years or more) but they have to offer it.  They can't say you can't have a bazooka but they can make it almost impossible for you to get the permit to have one for various reasons.  They can't say that you can't own a fully Automatic Weapon of any kind but they can fix it so they are just plain unavailable by either making them too expensive (a real M-16-A-1 in junk condition starts at 15,000 dollars) or makes it almost impossible to comply with the storage requirements or makes it almost impossible to gain the proper permit to have it. (Again, NYC).  None of these methods are against the Second amendment and are well within the 14th amendment according to the many rulings by the Supreme Courts over the past decades.  They can rule that one type of weapon is in excess for home defense while others are not.  They can make a rule for an age limit on purchasing firearms and ammo.  They can limit the Mag Sizes.  They can outlaw the sale of the ability to use certain addons.  The list goes on and on.  And all have been upheld by the Supreme Court.  That pretty well means that they are Constitutional.  Maybe not moral but constitutional.
> 
> What I hold is that we need to amend the 2nd amendment to remove the ambiguity that it has in today's world.  200 years ago, it was so much simpler.  But since 1850 (circa) we have long since outgrown it's simple wording.  One side says vehemently that we need to get rid of the 2nd amendment while another faction says we need to follow the second half word for word without any other thoughts.  Both sides will continue this war but people are getting killed or maybe needlessly in fear of their lives over this "Debate".  I won't really call it a debate.  Both sides are just yelling over the fence at each other and neither is listening.  What we need is a starting dialogue to get it settled and updated to todays standards.  It's not 1775 anymore and our weapons have outgrown the Muskets by far.  And our Population is more dense than it ever has been before.  There has to be a balance between the right to bear arms and Public Safety.  This means we have to stop the yelling while hold our hands over our ears and come to a decent set of decisions before another group (Politicians) that are less qualified does it for us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You write a hell of a lot about something which you claim has no powers, but which you're talking about having powers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, make up your mind.  Does the Constitution have the power or not?  Is it the law of the land or not?  Should we follow it or not in it's entirety or not?   Or should we just pick and choose the parts we want to follow and disregard the rest.  Or do we just do whatever the hell we please.    But make up your mind.
> 
> Do we continue to allow complete morons in office to keep writing the laws so badly that there is such a turmoil?  Guess you like it when they do it for you and it is such a mess.  Well, cupcake, I don't.  I want good laws instead of really stupid laws that make a mess out of everything it touches.  Since you seem to like the confusion and chaos then I guess we know where you stand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We passed a very good law against Murder. Criminals ignore even the best written laws.
> 
> What the hell is your point?
Click to expand...


And what does that have to do with law abiding citizens and firearms?  Not a damned thing.  It's just another strawman.  Rather than address the problem you want us to not look directly.  Watch your left hand while the right hand is doing the real magic, right, there cupcake.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Pop23 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's take  a look at the 2nd amendment and break it into two parts.
> 
> *A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,
> *
> This was put into place to prevent the Federal Government from becoming all powerful.  Our Founding Fathers were downright paranoid about this after just finishing a war with England.  In fact, they were so paranoid that they limited the Federals to no more than a 75,000 man standing army which would not be enough to even stand against one state's organized militia much less all of them.  But going into WWI, Congress inacted the National Guard Act of 1917 that allowed the Federal Government to fund the Guard Units in the States right around 120 days a year and the Feds could call up the Guard Units.  But they did add a provision that stated that the State could create a States Guard seperate from the National Guard where those in it that were not eligible to be called up could stay with the state guard.  States could have members that were in both Guard Organizations but in the even of federalization, those people would become Federal Troops.  Also, those that still had a commitment to their Military time (i.e. 4 years for some and 10 for others after they leave the active duty service) could serve with the state guard but would be federalized.  This means that states like Texas has a State Guard that is still very strong today which is mostly comprised of Local Police, Sheriffs, Texas Rangers, Fire Fighters and such that cannot be called up and can be used by the Texas Governor as the Old Guard used to be used for including in case of a Rogue Federal Government Uprising.  But the first half of the 2nd amendment really has been watered down and probably needs to be amended to keep it current as there is very little chance that the Federal Military would follow orders to suppress any given state.  You see, it's written into the UCMJ (the Military Constitution) to prevent that from happening.
> 
> 
> *the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> *
> We also need to include the 14th amendment as well.  This right is within your own home and pertains to adequate protection weapons.  You may believe a pungee pit should be used to protect your property or a high amperage high voltage electric shock on your welcome matt but I don't know of any lawyer that could keep you from prison if you actually had to use such a thing.  It's excess.  The state, under the 14th amendment can rule what is in excess for firearms.  It's usually under the reasoning of Public Safety.  They can determine that you need to be registered to carry a weapon (not open carry) on the street and then make it almost impossible for you to actually get the permit (case in point NYC) in a timely manner ( years or more) but they have to offer it.  They can't say you can't have a bazooka but they can make it almost impossible for you to get the permit to have one for various reasons.  They can't say that you can't own a fully Automatic Weapon of any kind but they can fix it so they are just plain unavailable by either making them too expensive (a real M-16-A-1 in junk condition starts at 15,000 dollars) or makes it almost impossible to comply with the storage requirements or makes it almost impossible to gain the proper permit to have it. (Again, NYC).  None of these methods are against the Second amendment and are well within the 14th amendment according to the many rulings by the Supreme Courts over the past decades.  They can rule that one type of weapon is in excess for home defense while others are not.  They can make a rule for an age limit on purchasing firearms and ammo.  They can limit the Mag Sizes.  They can outlaw the sale of the ability to use certain addons.  The list goes on and on.  And all have been upheld by the Supreme Court.  That pretty well means that they are Constitutional.  Maybe not moral but constitutional.
> 
> What I hold is that we need to amend the 2nd amendment to remove the ambiguity that it has in today's world.  200 years ago, it was so much simpler.  But since 1850 (circa) we have long since outgrown it's simple wording.  One side says vehemently that we need to get rid of the 2nd amendment while another faction says we need to follow the second half word for word without any other thoughts.  Both sides will continue this war but people are getting killed or maybe needlessly in fear of their lives over this "Debate".  I won't really call it a debate.  Both sides are just yelling over the fence at each other and neither is listening.  What we need is a starting dialogue to get it settled and updated to todays standards.  It's not 1775 anymore and our weapons have outgrown the Muskets by far.  And our Population is more dense than it ever has been before.  There has to be a balance between the right to bear arms and Public Safety.  This means we have to stop the yelling while hold our hands over our ears and come to a decent set of decisions before another group (Politicians) that are less qualified does it for us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You write a hell of a lot about something which you claim has no powers, but which you're talking about having powers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, make up your mind.  Does the Constitution have the power or not?  Is it the law of the land or not?  Should we follow it or not in it's entirety or not?   Or should we just pick and choose the parts we want to follow and disregard the rest.  Or do we just do whatever the hell we please.    But make up your mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You talk a lot, but rarely listen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for making my point, cupcake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think I did? I didn’t, but you do ramble, dontcha petunia
Click to expand...


Are you ready to really discuss it or are you going to keep going on like you are.  If you really want a good discussion then let's get it done.  If not, just keep going like you are and  a bunch of moronic politicos will pass some really stupid laws about it that none of us really want.  But I guess you are used to that.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Daryl Hunt said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try, but there is no Bill of Rights for any other government so you had to be talking about our Federal government.  and,  you are wrong.  The 2nd Amendment enumerates a Right of the individual to keep arms for their own PRIVATE defense.  It conveys no Rights to the State at all.  The State after all IS power.  The ridiculous claim that the 2nd gives the government the right to arm itself is simply stupid.  States have no Rights.  PEOPLE DO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's take  a look at the 2nd amendment and break it into two parts.
> 
> *A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,
> *
> This was put into place to prevent the Federal Government from becoming all powerful.  Our Founding Fathers were downright paranoid about this after just finishing a war with England.  In fact, they were so paranoid that they limited the Federals to no more than a 75,000 man standing army which would not be enough to even stand against one state's organized militia much less all of them.  But going into WWI, Congress inacted the National Guard Act of 1917 that allowed the Federal Government to fund the Guard Units in the States right around 120 days a year and the Feds could call up the Guard Units.  But they did add a provision that stated that the State could create a States Guard seperate from the National Guard where those in it that were not eligible to be called up could stay with the state guard.  States could have members that were in both Guard Organizations but in the even of federalization, those people would become Federal Troops.  Also, those that still had a commitment to their Military time (i.e. 4 years for some and 10 for others after they leave the active duty service) could serve with the state guard but would be federalized.  This means that states like Texas has a State Guard that is still very strong today which is mostly comprised of Local Police, Sheriffs, Texas Rangers, Fire Fighters and such that cannot be called up and can be used by the Texas Governor as the Old Guard used to be used for including in case of a Rogue Federal Government Uprising.  But the first half of the 2nd amendment really has been watered down and probably needs to be amended to keep it current as there is very little chance that the Federal Military would follow orders to suppress any given state.  You see, it's written into the UCMJ (the Military Constitution) to prevent that from happening.
> 
> 
> *the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> *
> We also need to include the 14th amendment as well.  This right is within your own home and pertains to adequate protection weapons.  You may believe a pungee pit should be used to protect your property or a high amperage high voltage electric shock on your welcome matt but I don't know of any lawyer that could keep you from prison if you actually had to use such a thing.  It's excess.  The state, under the 14th amendment can rule what is in excess for firearms.  It's usually under the reasoning of Public Safety.  They can determine that you need to be registered to carry a weapon (not open carry) on the street and then make it almost impossible for you to actually get the permit (case in point NYC) in a timely manner ( years or more) but they have to offer it.  They can't say you can't have a bazooka but they can make it almost impossible for you to get the permit to have one for various reasons.  They can't say that you can't own a fully Automatic Weapon of any kind but they can fix it so they are just plain unavailable by either making them too expensive (a real M-16-A-1 in junk condition starts at 15,000 dollars) or makes it almost impossible to comply with the storage requirements or makes it almost impossible to gain the proper permit to have it. (Again, NYC).  None of these methods are against the Second amendment and are well within the 14th amendment according to the many rulings by the Supreme Courts over the past decades.  They can rule that one type of weapon is in excess for home defense while others are not.  They can make a rule for an age limit on purchasing firearms and ammo.  They can limit the Mag Sizes.  They can outlaw the sale of the ability to use certain addons.  The list goes on and on.  And all have been upheld by the Supreme Court.  That pretty well means that they are Constitutional.  Maybe not moral but constitutional.
> 
> What I hold is that we need to amend the 2nd amendment to remove the ambiguity that it has in today's world.  200 years ago, it was so much simpler.  But since 1850 (circa) we have long since outgrown it's simple wording.  One side says vehemently that we need to get rid of the 2nd amendment while another faction says we need to follow the second half word for word without any other thoughts.  Both sides will continue this war but people are getting killed or maybe needlessly in fear of their lives over this "Debate".  I won't really call it a debate.  Both sides are just yelling over the fence at each other and neither is listening.  What we need is a starting dialogue to get it settled and updated to todays standards.  It's not 1775 anymore and our weapons have outgrown the Muskets by far.  And our Population is more dense than it ever has been before.  There has to be a balance between the right to bear arms and Public Safety.  This means we have to stop the yelling while hold our hands over our ears and come to a decent set of decisions before another group (Politicians) that are less qualified does it for us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You write a hell of a lot about something which you claim has no powers, but which you're talking about having powers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, make up your mind.  Does the Constitution have the power or not?  Is it the law of the land or not?  Should we follow it or not in it's entirety or not?   Or should we just pick and choose the parts we want to follow and disregard the rest.  Or do we just do whatever the hell we please.    But make up your mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You talk a lot, but rarely listen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for making my point, cupcake.
Click to expand...


Wait until you find out he's on my ignore list.......


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

Daryl Hunt said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> Applying 21st Century mores to 18th Century thinking is an exercise in vanity.
> 
> The militia is bound to the right.  The right is not bound to the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to follow the meaning of the 2nd amendment, the Militia is bound to the Government which should be neither right nor left, it just is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you really don'tunderstand the English language do you.  The Militia was a COUNTER to the government.  It wasn't bound to the government, it was a defense FROM the government.
> 
> "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
> - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
> 
> "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787
> 
> "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787
> 
> "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
> - Thomas Jefferson, _Commonplace Book_ (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
> 
> "The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824
> 
> "To disarm the people..._s the most effectual way to enslave them."
> - George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 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
> 
> "Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, *and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."*
> - James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And on and on and on.  The 2nd Amendment is the ultimate defender of ALL other Rights.  Or, as a much smarter person than I ever said, "the Bill of Rights is nine limitations on what government can do....and one, final option."_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say which government.  You assumed I meant the Federal Government while you are looking for a fight or just trying to be right.  You are kind of right.  But the 2nd amendment is what gives the States the right to have State Militias seperate from the Federal Forces and even the National Guard.  The State can raise an army if it feels the need.  And THAT is the Organized Militia, not the National Guard which can be Nationalized.  But the first half of the 2nd amendment is probably not necessary so much anymore and is primarily used by nutjobs that just want to run around the woods calling themselves Militias.  I call them potential Lynch Mobs.  But a few states still have State Guards and do use them in case of Emergency when one arises.   It really burns Femas drawers when the State Guard takes charge and Fema has to work for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try, but there is no Bill of Rights for any other government so you had to be talking about our Federal government.  and,  you are wrong.  The 2nd Amendment enumerates a Right of the individual to keep arms for their own PRIVATE defense.  It conveys no Rights to the State at all.  The State after all IS power.  The ridiculous claim that the 2nd gives the government the right to arm itself is simply stupid.  States have no Rights.  PEOPLE DO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's take  a look at the 2nd amendment and break it into two parts.
> 
> *A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,
> *
> This was put into place to prevent the Federal Government from becoming all powerful.  Our Founding Fathers were downright paranoid about this after just finishing a war with England.  In fact, they were so paranoid that they limited the Federals to no more than a 75,000 man standing army which would not be enough to even stand against one state's organized militia much less all of them.  But going into WWI, Congress inacted the National Guard Act of 1917 that allowed the Federal Government to fund the Guard Units in the States right around 120 days a year and the Feds could call up the Guard Units.  But they did add a provision that stated that the State could create a States Guard seperate from the National Guard where those in it that were not eligible to be called up could stay with the state guard.  States could have members that were in both Guard Organizations but in the even of federalization, those people would become Federal Troops.  Also, those that still had a commitment to their Military time (i.e. 4 years for some and 10 for others after they leave the active duty service) could serve with the state guard but would be federalized.  This means that states like Texas has a State Guard that is still very strong today which is mostly comprised of Local Police, Sheriffs, Texas Rangers, Fire Fighters and such that cannot be called up and can be used by the Texas Governor as the Old Guard used to be used for including in case of a Rogue Federal Government Uprising.  But the first half of the 2nd amendment really has been watered down and probably needs to be amended to keep it current as there is very little chance that the Federal Military would follow orders to suppress any given state.  You see, it's written into the UCMJ (the Military Constitution) to prevent that from happening.
> 
> 
> *the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> *
> We also need to include the 14th amendment as well.  This right is within your own home and pertains to adequate protection weapons.  You may believe a pungee pit should be used to protect your property or a high amperage high voltage electric shock on your welcome matt but I don't know of any lawyer that could keep you from prison if you actually had to use such a thing.  It's excess.  The state, under the 14th amendment can rule what is in excess for firearms.  It's usually under the reasoning of Public Safety.  They can determine that you need to be registered to carry a weapon (not open carry) on the street and then make it almost impossible for you to actually get the permit (case in point NYC) in a timely manner ( years or more) but they have to offer it.  They can't say you can't have a bazooka but they can make it almost impossible for you to get the permit to have one for various reasons.  They can't say that you can't own a fully Automatic Weapon of any kind but they can fix it so they are just plain unavailable by either making them too expensive (a real M-16-A-1 in junk condition starts at 15,000 dollars) or makes it almost impossible to comply with the storage requirements or makes it almost impossible to gain the proper permit to have it. (Again, NYC).  None of these methods are against the Second amendment and are well within the 14th amendment according to the many rulings by the Supreme Courts over the past decades.  They can rule that one type of weapon is in excess for home defense while others are not.  They can make a rule for an age limit on purchasing firearms and ammo.  They can limit the Mag Sizes.  They can outlaw the sale of the ability to use certain addons.  The list goes on and on.  And all have been upheld by the Supreme Court.  That pretty well means that they are Constitutional.  Maybe not moral but constitutional.
> 
> What I hold is that we need to amend the 2nd amendment to remove the ambiguity that it has in today's world.  200 years ago, it was so much simpler.  But since 1850 (circa) we have long since outgrown it's simple wording.  One side says vehemently that we need to get rid of the 2nd amendment while another faction says we need to follow the second half word for word without any other thoughts.  Both sides will continue this war but people are getting killed or maybe needlessly in fear of their lives over this "Debate".  I won't really call it a debate.  Both sides are just yelling over the fence at each other and neither is listening.  What we need is a starting dialogue to get it settled and updated to todays standards.  It's not 1775 anymore and our weapons have outgrown the Muskets by far.  And our Population is more dense than it ever has been before.  There has to be a balance between the right to bear arms and Public Safety.  This means we have to stop the yelling while hold our hands over our ears and come to a decent set of decisions before another group (Politicians) that are less qualified does it for us.
Click to expand...


Starting dialogue?  Too funny.  What rock have you been hiding under these last 25 years?

Aside from a few details, the matter is settled.  No further discussion is necessary.

If you'd like to change something constitutional, have at it.  I'm sure you know the drill.


----------



## Pop23

Daryl Hunt said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try, but there is no Bill of Rights for any other government so you had to be talking about our Federal government.  and,  you are wrong.  The 2nd Amendment enumerates a Right of the individual to keep arms for their own PRIVATE defense.  It conveys no Rights to the State at all.  The State after all IS power.  The ridiculous claim that the 2nd gives the government the right to arm itself is simply stupid.  States have no Rights.  PEOPLE DO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's take  a look at the 2nd amendment and break it into two parts.
> 
> *A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,
> *
> This was put into place to prevent the Federal Government from becoming all powerful.  Our Founding Fathers were downright paranoid about this after just finishing a war with England.  In fact, they were so paranoid that they limited the Federals to no more than a 75,000 man standing army which would not be enough to even stand against one state's organized militia much less all of them.  But going into WWI, Congress inacted the National Guard Act of 1917 that allowed the Federal Government to fund the Guard Units in the States right around 120 days a year and the Feds could call up the Guard Units.  But they did add a provision that stated that the State could create a States Guard seperate from the National Guard where those in it that were not eligible to be called up could stay with the state guard.  States could have members that were in both Guard Organizations but in the even of federalization, those people would become Federal Troops.  Also, those that still had a commitment to their Military time (i.e. 4 years for some and 10 for others after they leave the active duty service) could serve with the state guard but would be federalized.  This means that states like Texas has a State Guard that is still very strong today which is mostly comprised of Local Police, Sheriffs, Texas Rangers, Fire Fighters and such that cannot be called up and can be used by the Texas Governor as the Old Guard used to be used for including in case of a Rogue Federal Government Uprising.  But the first half of the 2nd amendment really has been watered down and probably needs to be amended to keep it current as there is very little chance that the Federal Military would follow orders to suppress any given state.  You see, it's written into the UCMJ (the Military Constitution) to prevent that from happening.
> 
> 
> *the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> *
> We also need to include the 14th amendment as well.  This right is within your own home and pertains to adequate protection weapons.  You may believe a pungee pit should be used to protect your property or a high amperage high voltage electric shock on your welcome matt but I don't know of any lawyer that could keep you from prison if you actually had to use such a thing.  It's excess.  The state, under the 14th amendment can rule what is in excess for firearms.  It's usually under the reasoning of Public Safety.  They can determine that you need to be registered to carry a weapon (not open carry) on the street and then make it almost impossible for you to actually get the permit (case in point NYC) in a timely manner ( years or more) but they have to offer it.  They can't say you can't have a bazooka but they can make it almost impossible for you to get the permit to have one for various reasons.  They can't say that you can't own a fully Automatic Weapon of any kind but they can fix it so they are just plain unavailable by either making them too expensive (a real M-16-A-1 in junk condition starts at 15,000 dollars) or makes it almost impossible to comply with the storage requirements or makes it almost impossible to gain the proper permit to have it. (Again, NYC).  None of these methods are against the Second amendment and are well within the 14th amendment according to the many rulings by the Supreme Courts over the past decades.  They can rule that one type of weapon is in excess for home defense while others are not.  They can make a rule for an age limit on purchasing firearms and ammo.  They can limit the Mag Sizes.  They can outlaw the sale of the ability to use certain addons.  The list goes on and on.  And all have been upheld by the Supreme Court.  That pretty well means that they are Constitutional.  Maybe not moral but constitutional.
> 
> What I hold is that we need to amend the 2nd amendment to remove the ambiguity that it has in today's world.  200 years ago, it was so much simpler.  But since 1850 (circa) we have long since outgrown it's simple wording.  One side says vehemently that we need to get rid of the 2nd amendment while another faction says we need to follow the second half word for word without any other thoughts.  Both sides will continue this war but people are getting killed or maybe needlessly in fear of their lives over this "Debate".  I won't really call it a debate.  Both sides are just yelling over the fence at each other and neither is listening.  What we need is a starting dialogue to get it settled and updated to todays standards.  It's not 1775 anymore and our weapons have outgrown the Muskets by far.  And our Population is more dense than it ever has been before.  There has to be a balance between the right to bear arms and Public Safety.  This means we have to stop the yelling while hold our hands over our ears and come to a decent set of decisions before another group (Politicians) that are less qualified does it for us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You write a hell of a lot about something which you claim has no powers, but which you're talking about having powers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, make up your mind.  Does the Constitution have the power or not?  Is it the law of the land or not?  Should we follow it or not in it's entirety or not?   Or should we just pick and choose the parts we want to follow and disregard the rest.  Or do we just do whatever the hell we please.    But make up your mind.
> 
> Do we continue to allow complete morons in office to keep writing the laws so badly that there is such a turmoil?  Guess you like it when they do it for you and it is such a mess.  Well, cupcake, I don't.  I want good laws instead of really stupid laws that make a mess out of everything it touches.  Since you seem to like the confusion and chaos then I guess we know where you stand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We passed a very good law against Murder. Criminals ignore even the best written laws.
> 
> What the hell is your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what does that have to do with law abiding citizens and firearms?  Not a damned thing.  It's just another strawman.  Rather than address the problem you want us to not look directly.  Watch your left hand while the right hand is doing the real magic, right, there cupcake.
Click to expand...


You see law abiding citizens as the problem?

Well sunshine, your issues run pretty damn deep. Seek help soon.


----------



## Pop23

Daryl Hunt said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You write a hell of a lot about something which you claim has no powers, but which you're talking about having powers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, make up your mind.  Does the Constitution have the power or not?  Is it the law of the land or not?  Should we follow it or not in it's entirety or not?   Or should we just pick and choose the parts we want to follow and disregard the rest.  Or do we just do whatever the hell we please.    But make up your mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You talk a lot, but rarely listen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for making my point, cupcake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think I did? I didn’t, but you do ramble, dontcha petunia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you ready to really discuss it or are you going to keep going on like you are.  If you really want a good discussion then let's get it done.  If not, just keep going like you are and  a bunch of moronic politicos will pass some really stupid laws about it that none of us really want.  But I guess you are used to that.
Click to expand...


Not sure I can discuss it with someone who doesn’t thing my freedom of speech is constitutionally protected.

Now back to your knitting with ya


----------



## The Professor

frigidweirdo said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the 2nd amendment was meant as the left says it was........
> 
> WHY THE HELL WOULD IT APPEAR IN THE BILL IF RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
> 
> Clue, it wouldn’t
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We aren't governed by any part of the Bill of Rights.  We are governed by the Constitutions of the United States and the many States.  As nice and lofty as the Bill of Rights is, it's just another piece of parchment, nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the Bill of Rights is part of the US Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, but the Bill of Rights is not the Constitution.  It's a seperate document that has no legal standings.  The Constitution did take it's first 10 amendments from it but the constitution is more than that and is the law of the land.  The Bill of Rights is just a supporting document.  Anyone states that we must follow the bill or rights over the Constitution doesn't get my support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you fucking kidding me?
> 
> You shouldn't even be talking about the Constitution if you have no clue what it's about.
> 
> The Bill of Rights has as much legal standing as any other part of the Constitution.
> 
> Learn something today.
Click to expand...


You are correct.  That's what they taught me in law school

Article V of the United States Constitution makes it clear that all amendments – when properly ratified – become part of the Constitution.

*Article V*

“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.”

All amendments contained in the Constitution are an integral part of that document. Here is how one source explains it.

“Thirty-three *amendments to the United States Constitution* have been proposed by the United States Congress and sent to the states for ratification since the Constitution was put into operation on March 4, 1789. Twenty-seven of these, having been ratified by the requisite number of states, are part of the Constitution. The first ten amendments were adopted and ratified simultaneously and are known collectively as the Bill of Rights. Six amendments adopted by Congress and sent to the states have not been ratified by the required number of states. Four of these amendments are still technically open and pending, one is closed and has failed by its own terms, and one is closed and has failed by the terms of the resolution proposing it.

Article Five of the United States Constitution detailed the two-step process for amending the nation's frame of government. Amendments must be properly _Proposed_ and _Ratified_ before becoming operative. This process was designed to strike a balance between the excesses of constant change and inflexibility."

List of amendments to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

Conclusion: All the amendments contained within the pages of the Constitution are as much a part of that document as any other article contained therein, and just as enforceable. To suggest that the amendments have no power is foolish. That would mean that the Constitution could never be changed since the changes (amendments) would be ineffective. Daryl Hunt seems to be an intelligent man; however, his knowledge of the U.S. Constitution is sorely lacking.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Pop23 said:


> If the 2nd amendment was meant as the left says it was........
> 
> WHY THE HELL WOULD IT APPEAR IN THE BILL IF RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
> 
> Clue, it wouldn’t


'The left' says the Second Amendment means what the Supreme Court says it means. 

The right needs to do the same.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Daryl Hunt said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> Applying 21st Century mores to 18th Century thinking is an exercise in vanity.
> 
> The militia is bound to the right.  The right is not bound to the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to follow the meaning of the 2nd amendment, the Militia is bound to the Government which should be neither right nor left, it just is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you really don'tunderstand the English language do you.  The Militia was a COUNTER to the government.  It wasn't bound to the government, it was a defense FROM the government.
> 
> "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
> - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
> 
> "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787
> 
> "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787
> 
> "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
> - Thomas Jefferson, _Commonplace Book_ (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
> 
> "The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824
> 
> "To disarm the people..._s the most effectual way to enslave them."
> - George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 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
> 
> "Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, *and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."*
> - James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And on and on and on.  The 2nd Amendment is the ultimate defender of ALL other Rights.  Or, as a much smarter person than I ever said, "the Bill of Rights is nine limitations on what government can do....and one, final option."_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say which government.  You assumed I meant the Federal Government while you are looking for a fight or just trying to be right.  You are kind of right.  But the 2nd amendment is what gives the States the right to have State Militias seperate from the Federal Forces and even the National Guard.  The State can raise an army if it feels the need.  And THAT is the Organized Militia, not the National Guard which can be Nationalized.  But the first half of the 2nd amendment is probably not necessary so much anymore and is primarily used by nutjobs that just want to run around the woods calling themselves Militias.  I call them potential Lynch Mobs.  But a few states still have State Guards and do use them in case of Emergency when one arises.   It really burns Femas drawers when the State Guard takes charge and Fema has to work for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try, but there is no Bill of Rights for any other government so you had to be talking about our Federal government.  and,  you are wrong.  The 2nd Amendment enumerates a Right of the individual to keep arms for their own PRIVATE defense.  It conveys no Rights to the State at all.  The State after all IS power.  The ridiculous claim that the 2nd gives the government the right to arm itself is simply stupid.  States have no Rights.  PEOPLE DO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's take  a look at the 2nd amendment and break it into two parts.
> 
> *A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,
> *
> This was put into place to prevent the Federal Government from becoming all powerful.  Our Founding Fathers were downright paranoid about this after just finishing a war with England.  In fact, they were so paranoid that they limited the Federals to no more than a 75,000 man standing army which would not be enough to even stand against one state's organized militia much less all of them.  But going into WWI, Congress inacted the National Guard Act of 1917 that allowed the Federal Government to fund the Guard Units in the States right around 120 days a year and the Feds could call up the Guard Units.  But they did add a provision that stated that the State could create a States Guard seperate from the National Guard where those in it that were not eligible to be called up could stay with the state guard.  States could have members that were in both Guard Organizations but in the even of federalization, those people would become Federal Troops.  Also, those that still had a commitment to their Military time (i.e. 4 years for some and 10 for others after they leave the active duty service) could serve with the state guard but would be federalized.  This means that states like Texas has a State Guard that is still very strong today which is mostly comprised of Local Police, Sheriffs, Texas Rangers, Fire Fighters and such that cannot be called up and can be used by the Texas Governor as the Old Guard used to be used for including in case of a Rogue Federal Government Uprising.  But the first half of the 2nd amendment really has been watered down and probably needs to be amended to keep it current as there is very little chance that the Federal Military would follow orders to suppress any given state.  You see, it's written into the UCMJ (the Military Constitution) to prevent that from happening.
> 
> 
> *the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> *
> We also need to include the 14th amendment as well.  This right is within your own home and pertains to adequate protection weapons.  You may believe a pungee pit should be used to protect your property or a high amperage high voltage electric shock on your welcome matt but I don't know of any lawyer that could keep you from prison if you actually had to use such a thing.  It's excess.  The state, under the 14th amendment can rule what is in excess for firearms.  It's usually under the reasoning of Public Safety.  They can determine that you need to be registered to carry a weapon (not open carry) on the street and then make it almost impossible for you to actually get the permit (case in point NYC) in a timely manner ( years or more) but they have to offer it.  They can't say you can't have a bazooka but they can make it almost impossible for you to get the permit to have one for various reasons.  They can't say that you can't own a fully Automatic Weapon of any kind but they can fix it so they are just plain unavailable by either making them too expensive (a real M-16-A-1 in junk condition starts at 15,000 dollars) or makes it almost impossible to comply with the storage requirements or makes it almost impossible to gain the proper permit to have it. (Again, NYC).  None of these methods are against the Second amendment and are well within the 14th amendment according to the many rulings by the Supreme Courts over the past decades.  They can rule that one type of weapon is in excess for home defense while others are not.  They can make a rule for an age limit on purchasing firearms and ammo.  They can limit the Mag Sizes.  They can outlaw the sale of the ability to use certain addons.  The list goes on and on.  And all have been upheld by the Supreme Court.  That pretty well means that they are Constitutional.  Maybe not moral but constitutional.
> 
> What I hold is that we need to amend the 2nd amendment to remove the ambiguity that it has in today's world.  200 years ago, it was so much simpler.  But since 1850 (circa) we have long since outgrown it's simple wording.  One side says vehemently that we need to get rid of the 2nd amendment while another faction says we need to follow the second half word for word without any other thoughts.  Both sides will continue this war but people are getting killed or maybe needlessly in fear of their lives over this "Debate".  I won't really call it a debate.  Both sides are just yelling over the fence at each other and neither is listening.  What we need is a starting dialogue to get it settled and updated to todays standards.  It's not 1775 anymore and our weapons have outgrown the Muskets by far.  And our Population is more dense than it ever has been before.  There has to be a balance between the right to bear arms and Public Safety.  This means we have to stop the yelling while hold our hands over our ears and come to a decent set of decisions before another group (Politicians) that are less qualified does it for us.
Click to expand...

Amendments can't be 'amended.'

You would need to amend the Constitution to repeal the Second Amendment, and amend the Constitution again with its replacement.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the 2nd amendment was meant as the left says it was........
> 
> WHY THE HELL WOULD IT APPEAR IN THE BILL IF RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
> 
> Clue, it wouldn’t
> 
> 
> 
> 'The left' says the Second Amendment means what the Supreme Court says it means.
Click to expand...


Great.  So stop whining.


----------



## Pop23

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the 2nd amendment was meant as the left says it was........
> 
> WHY THE HELL WOULD IT APPEAR IN THE BILL IF RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
> 
> Clue, it wouldn’t
> 
> 
> 
> 'The left' says the Second Amendment means what the Supreme Court says it means.
> 
> The right needs to do the same.
Click to expand...


Yep. On the second amendment, however, the right is.........

Right


----------



## Pop23

Never thought I’d live to see the day that one person could get so many on the left and right to agree on an issue as the Noob Daryl has. 

Our own little virtual militia.


----------



## danielpalos

Pop23 said:


> If the 2nd amendment was meant as the left says it was........
> 
> WHY THE HELL WOULD IT APPEAR IN THE BILL IF RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
> 
> Clue, it wouldn’t


Well regulated militia are expressly declared Necessary to the security of a free State, not the federal government or the People.


----------



## danielpalos

Daryl Hunt said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> Applying 21st Century mores to 18th Century thinking is an exercise in vanity.
> 
> The militia is bound to the right.  The right is not bound to the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to follow the meaning of the 2nd amendment, the Militia is bound to the Government which should be neither right nor left, it just is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you really don'tunderstand the English language do you.  The Militia was a COUNTER to the government.  It wasn't bound to the government, it was a defense FROM the government.
> 
> "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
> - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
> 
> "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787
> 
> "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787
> 
> "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
> - Thomas Jefferson, _Commonplace Book_ (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
> 
> "The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824
> 
> "To disarm the people..._s the most effectual way to enslave them."
> - George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 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
> 
> "Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, *and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."*
> - James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And on and on and on.  The 2nd Amendment is the ultimate defender of ALL other Rights.  Or, as a much smarter person than I ever said, "the Bill of Rights is nine limitations on what government can do....and one, final option."_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say which government.  You assumed I meant the Federal Government while you are looking for a fight or just trying to be right.  You are kind of right.  But the 2nd amendment is what gives the States the right to have State Militias seperate from the Federal Forces and even the National Guard.  The State can raise an army if it feels the need.  And THAT is the Organized Militia, not the National Guard which can be Nationalized.  But the first half of the 2nd amendment is probably not necessary so much anymore and is primarily used by nutjobs that just want to run around the woods calling themselves Militias.  I call them potential Lynch Mobs.  But a few states still have State Guards and do use them in case of Emergency when one arises.   It really burns Femas drawers when the State Guard takes charge and Fema has to work for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try, but there is no Bill of Rights for any other government so you had to be talking about our Federal government.  and,  you are wrong.  The 2nd Amendment enumerates a Right of the individual to keep arms for their own PRIVATE defense.  It conveys no Rights to the State at all.  The State after all IS power.  The ridiculous claim that the 2nd gives the government the right to arm itself is simply stupid.  States have no Rights.  PEOPLE DO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's take  a look at the 2nd amendment and break it into two parts.
> 
> *A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,
> *
> This was put into place to prevent the Federal Government from becoming all powerful.  Our Founding Fathers were downright paranoid about this after just finishing a war with England.  In fact, they were so paranoid that they limited the Federals to no more than a 75,000 man standing army which would not be enough to even stand against one state's organized militia much less all of them.  But going into WWI, Congress inacted the National Guard Act of 1917 that allowed the Federal Government to fund the Guard Units in the States right around 120 days a year and the Feds could call up the Guard Units.  But they did add a provision that stated that the State could create a States Guard seperate from the National Guard where those in it that were not eligible to be called up could stay with the state guard.  States could have members that were in both Guard Organizations but in the even of federalization, those people would become Federal Troops.  Also, those that still had a commitment to their Military time (i.e. 4 years for some and 10 for others after they leave the active duty service) could serve with the state guard but would be federalized.  This means that states like Texas has a State Guard that is still very strong today which is mostly comprised of Local Police, Sheriffs, Texas Rangers, Fire Fighters and such that cannot be called up and can be used by the Texas Governor as the Old Guard used to be used for including in case of a Rogue Federal Government Uprising.  But the first half of the 2nd amendment really has been watered down and probably needs to be amended to keep it current as there is very little chance that the Federal Military would follow orders to suppress any given state.  You see, it's written into the UCMJ (the Military Constitution) to prevent that from happening.
> 
> 
> *the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> *
> We also need to include the 14th amendment as well.  This right is within your own home and pertains to adequate protection weapons.  You may believe a pungee pit should be used to protect your property or a high amperage high voltage electric shock on your welcome matt but I don't know of any lawyer that could keep you from prison if you actually had to use such a thing.  It's excess.  The state, under the 14th amendment can rule what is in excess for firearms.  It's usually under the reasoning of Public Safety.  They can determine that you need to be registered to carry a weapon (not open carry) on the street and then make it almost impossible for you to actually get the permit (case in point NYC) in a timely manner ( years or more) but they have to offer it.  They can't say you can't have a bazooka but they can make it almost impossible for you to get the permit to have one for various reasons.  They can't say that you can't own a fully Automatic Weapon of any kind but they can fix it so they are just plain unavailable by either making them too expensive (a real M-16-A-1 in junk condition starts at 15,000 dollars) or makes it almost impossible to comply with the storage requirements or makes it almost impossible to gain the proper permit to have it. (Again, NYC).  None of these methods are against the Second amendment and are well within the 14th amendment according to the many rulings by the Supreme Courts over the past decades.  They can rule that one type of weapon is in excess for home defense while others are not.  They can make a rule for an age limit on purchasing firearms and ammo.  They can limit the Mag Sizes.  They can outlaw the sale of the ability to use certain addons.  The list goes on and on.  And all have been upheld by the Supreme Court.  That pretty well means that they are Constitutional.  Maybe not moral but constitutional.
> 
> What I hold is that we need to amend the 2nd amendment to remove the ambiguity that it has in today's world.  200 years ago, it was so much simpler.  But since 1850 (circa) we have long since outgrown it's simple wording.  One side says vehemently that we need to get rid of the 2nd amendment while another faction says we need to follow the second half word for word without any other thoughts.  Both sides will continue this war but people are getting killed or maybe needlessly in fear of their lives over this "Debate".  I won't really call it a debate.  Both sides are just yelling over the fence at each other and neither is listening.  What we need is a starting dialogue to get it settled and updated to todays standards.  It's not 1775 anymore and our weapons have outgrown the Muskets by far.  And our Population is more dense than it ever has been before.  There has to be a balance between the right to bear arms and Public Safety.  This means we have to stop the yelling while hold our hands over our ears and come to a decent set of decisions before another group (Politicians) that are less qualified does it for us.
Click to expand...

There is No Ambiguity in our federal Constitution, only right wing reading comprehension issues. 

That is how Good of a job, our Founding Fathers did at the convention, with our supreme law of the land and federal Constitution.  There is no provision for excuses, in the federal doctrine, Only results.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

danielpalos said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the 2nd amendment was meant as the left says it was........
> 
> WHY THE HELL WOULD IT APPEAR IN THE BILL IF RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
> 
> Clue, it wouldn’t
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militia are expressly declared Necessary to the security of a free State, not the federal government or the People.
Click to expand...


The stupidity here is unbelievable.

What is the militia?


----------



## danielpalos

Billy_Kinetta said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the 2nd amendment was meant as the left says it was........
> 
> WHY THE HELL WOULD IT APPEAR IN THE BILL IF RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
> 
> Clue, it wouldn’t
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militia are expressly declared Necessary to the security of a free State, not the federal government or the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The stupidity here is unbelievable.
> 
> What is the militia?
Click to expand...

yes, and only the right wing appeals to ignorance of the law, and plain reason, not to mention, legal axioms.


"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
*— George Mason*_, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788_
Only well regulated militia of the whole People, a few public officials excepted, are declared Necessary, the unorganized militia is not declared Necessary and may be Infringed by well regulated militia, when Necessary for the security of a free State.

Our supreme law of the land is about the resolution of any conflict of laws, not the whole and entire concept of natural or individual rights.


----------



## Pop23

danielpalos said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the 2nd amendment was meant as the left says it was........
> 
> WHY THE HELL WOULD IT APPEAR IN THE BILL IF RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
> 
> Clue, it wouldn’t
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militia are expressly declared Necessary to the security of a free State, not the federal government or the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The stupidity here is unbelievable.
> 
> What is the militia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, and only the right wing appeals to ignorance of the law, and plain reason, not to mention, legal axioms.
> 
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> *— George Mason*_, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788_
> Only well regulated militia of the whole People, a few public officials excepted, are declared Necessary, the unorganized militia is not declared Necessary and may be Infringed by well regulated militia, when Necessary for the security of a free State.
> 
> Our supreme law of the land is about the resolution of any conflict of laws, not the whole and entire concept of natural or individual rights.
Click to expand...


Then the 2nd would have ended at the second comma, since it didn’t, it is expressing a right granted beyond the militia.


----------



## Pop23

danielpalos said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the 2nd amendment was meant as the left says it was........
> 
> WHY THE HELL WOULD IT APPEAR IN THE BILL IF RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
> 
> Clue, it wouldn’t
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militia are expressly declared Necessary to the security of a free State, not the federal government or the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The stupidity here is unbelievable.
> 
> What is the militia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, and only the right wing appeals to ignorance of the law, and plain reason, not to mention, legal axioms.
> 
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> *— George Mason*_, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788_
> Only well regulated militia of the whole People, a few public officials excepted, are declared Necessary, the unorganized militia is not declared Necessary and may be Infringed by well regulated militia, when Necessary for the security of a free State.
> 
> Our supreme law of the land is about the resolution of any conflict of laws, not the whole and entire concept of natural or individual rights.
Click to expand...


Did you put Russian dressing on that word salad?


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

danielpalos said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the 2nd amendment was meant as the left says it was........
> 
> WHY THE HELL WOULD IT APPEAR IN THE BILL IF RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
> 
> Clue, it wouldn’t
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militia are expressly declared Necessary to the security of a free State, not the federal government or the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The stupidity here is unbelievable.
> 
> What is the militia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, and only the right wing appeals to ignorance of the law, and plain reason, not to mention, legal axioms.
> 
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> *— George Mason*_, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788_
> Only well regulated militia of the whole People, a few public officials excepted, are declared Necessary, the unorganized militia is not declared Necessary and may be Infringed by well regulated militia, when Necessary for the security of a free State.
> 
> Our supreme law of the land is about the resolution of any conflict of laws, not the whole and entire concept of natural or individual rights.
Click to expand...


YOU SAID:  "Well regulated militia are expressly declared Necessary to the security of a free State, *not* ... *the People*.

GEORGE SAID:  "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is *the whole people*, except for a few public officials."

*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. 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. - Constitution Society*


----------



## Flash

Daryl Hunt said:


> I won't look at today.  I will look at the time around 1790.
> 
> *Militia Act of 1792*
> _Every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.
> _
> First we need to look at who was a Citizen in 1790s.  In the 1790s, ALL Blacks even free Blacks were prohibited from owning and carrying firearms.  All People even whites that would not swear allegiance to the newly formed United States were prohibited from owning or carrying fire arms.  Women were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms.  Bonded Slaves, even whites were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms of any kind.  It all pretty much boiled down that a Citizen was a Free White Male Land Owner deemed to be in good standing with the Existing Government both Stated and Federal Governments.  It's been estimated that only about 8% of the population from that time met the full requirement to own, possess and carry firearms legally.  Remember, more than half of the population of that time either supported the Crown or leaned heavily in that direction.  The Newly Formed Colonist Government did exactly what the British Government tried to do themselves.
> 
> There were two rebellions that made the Militia Act of 1792 to be written and adopted.  The Shays Rebellion of 1786-1787 and the Whiskey Rebellion 1791-1794.  While neither amounted to much, the founding fathers were scared to death that something else might come up that might endanger the newly formed Government so they adopted the 2nd Amendment as it was written since there was no Standing Army to prevent any decent resurrection from becoming successful.    It was left up to each state individually to provide the militias to prevent it from happening.  As long as the states agreed and didn't go to war with each other.
> 
> Using the original definition, if you don't own your House, Farm or Business and you don't completely and blindly support our current Government then are not a Citizen in Good Standings and will not be afforded the right to own, posses or carry any form of Firearms.  Oh, and you must be a Free White Male as well.




_Heller _put an end to all that silliness,


----------



## danielpalos

Pop23 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the 2nd amendment was meant as the left says it was........
> 
> WHY THE HELL WOULD IT APPEAR IN THE BILL IF RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
> 
> Clue, it wouldn’t
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militia are expressly declared Necessary to the security of a free State, not the federal government or the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The stupidity here is unbelievable.
> 
> What is the militia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, and only the right wing appeals to ignorance of the law, and plain reason, not to mention, legal axioms.
> 
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> *— George Mason*_, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788_
> Only well regulated militia of the whole People, a few public officials excepted, are declared Necessary, the unorganized militia is not declared Necessary and may be Infringed by well regulated militia, when Necessary for the security of a free State.
> 
> Our supreme law of the land is about the resolution of any conflict of laws, not the whole and entire concept of natural or individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then the 2nd would have ended at the second comma, since it didn’t, it is expressing a right granted beyond the militia.
Click to expand...

the punctuation changes nothing.  you can remove all of it, and it means the same.


----------



## Moonglow

danielpalos said:


> Drafting the militia means, grabbing anyone, not just gun lovers; it could mean, emptying our jails to lower costs.


And in times of emergency, and dire need it is done to this very day.


----------



## danielpalos

Moonglow said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Drafting the militia means, grabbing anyone, not just gun lovers; it could mean, emptying our jails to lower costs.
> 
> 
> 
> And in times of emergency, and dire need it is done to this very day.
Click to expand...

with for-profit prisons?  we have a Second Amendment and should have, no security problems.


----------



## Moonglow

danielpalos said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Drafting the militia means, grabbing anyone, not just gun lovers; it could mean, emptying our jails to lower costs.
> 
> 
> 
> And in times of emergency, and dire need it is done to this very day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> with for-profit prisons?  we have a Second Amendment and should have, no security problems.
Click to expand...

Yet humans have a problem of ignoring needs of the many..


----------



## danielpalos

Moonglow said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Drafting the militia means, grabbing anyone, not just gun lovers; it could mean, emptying our jails to lower costs.
> 
> 
> 
> And in times of emergency, and dire need it is done to this very day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> with for-profit prisons?  we have a Second Amendment and should have, no security problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet humans have a problem of ignoring needs of the many..
Click to expand...

Yet, the right wing alleges, Persons should be legal to federal law. 

we have a Second Amendment and should have, no security problems.


----------



## Pop23

danielpalos said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the 2nd amendment was meant as the left says it was........
> 
> WHY THE HELL WOULD IT APPEAR IN THE BILL IF RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
> 
> Clue, it wouldn’t
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militia are expressly declared Necessary to the security of a free State, not the federal government or the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The stupidity here is unbelievable.
> 
> What is the militia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, and only the right wing appeals to ignorance of the law, and plain reason, not to mention, legal axioms.
> 
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> *— George Mason*_, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788_
> Only well regulated militia of the whole People, a few public officials excepted, are declared Necessary, the unorganized militia is not declared Necessary and may be Infringed by well regulated militia, when Necessary for the security of a free State.
> 
> Our supreme law of the land is about the resolution of any conflict of laws, not the whole and entire concept of natural or individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then the 2nd would have ended at the second comma, since it didn’t, it is expressing a right granted beyond the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the punctuation changes nothing.  you can remove all of it, and it means the same.
Click to expand...


The punctuation means everything. It’s why the 2nd is in The Bill of Rights. Using your logic, the article would not be within the 1st 10 articles at all. 

The 1st 10 outline individual rights, and the 2nd would be so out of place as to be laughable. 

It would be like adding The History of the Ford Mustang within the Old Testament. 

A really bad placement. 

The founding fathers were not dumb.


----------



## danielpalos

Pop23 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militia are expressly declared Necessary to the security of a free State, not the federal government or the People.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The stupidity here is unbelievable.
> 
> What is the militia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, and only the right wing appeals to ignorance of the law, and plain reason, not to mention, legal axioms.
> 
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> *— George Mason*_, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788_
> Only well regulated militia of the whole People, a few public officials excepted, are declared Necessary, the unorganized militia is not declared Necessary and may be Infringed by well regulated militia, when Necessary for the security of a free State.
> 
> Our supreme law of the land is about the resolution of any conflict of laws, not the whole and entire concept of natural or individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then the 2nd would have ended at the second comma, since it didn’t, it is expressing a right granted beyond the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the punctuation changes nothing.  you can remove all of it, and it means the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The punctuation means everything. It’s why the 2nd is in The Bill of Rights. Using your logic, the article would not be within the 1st 10 articles at all.
> 
> The 1st 10 outline individual rights, and the 2nd would be so out of place as to be laughable.
> 
> It would be like adding The History of the Ford Mustang within the Old Testament.
> 
> A really bad placement.
> 
> The founding fathers were not dumb.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't.  The actual words, mean something, not the punctuation.  Our Second Amendment is completely legible and means the same thing, with out, "punctuation on the right wing".

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


----------



## Pop23

danielpalos said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> The stupidity here is unbelievable.
> 
> What is the militia?
> 
> 
> 
> yes, and only the right wing appeals to ignorance of the law, and plain reason, not to mention, legal axioms.
> 
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> *— George Mason*_, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788_
> Only well regulated militia of the whole People, a few public officials excepted, are declared Necessary, the unorganized militia is not declared Necessary and may be Infringed by well regulated militia, when Necessary for the security of a free State.
> 
> Our supreme law of the land is about the resolution of any conflict of laws, not the whole and entire concept of natural or individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then the 2nd would have ended at the second comma, since it didn’t, it is expressing a right granted beyond the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the punctuation changes nothing.  you can remove all of it, and it means the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The punctuation means everything. It’s why the 2nd is in The Bill of Rights. Using your logic, the article would not be within the 1st 10 articles at all.
> 
> The 1st 10 outline individual rights, and the 2nd would be so out of place as to be laughable.
> 
> It would be like adding The History of the Ford Mustang within the Old Testament.
> 
> A really bad placement.
> 
> The founding fathers were not dumb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't.  The actual words, mean something, not the punctuation.  Our Second Amendment is completely legible and means the same thing, with out, "punctuation on the right wing".
> 
> 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
Click to expand...


Using your logic, the article should read:

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State.

Anything beyond the period would not be necessary.

OR:

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State the right of the MILITIA to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed

Yet, neither is true, and it’s placement in the articles that give INDIVIDUAL rights make the actual wording of:

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

Completely understandable, that, it is the individuals the right.

PERIOD.


----------



## danielpalos

Pop23 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes, and only the right wing appeals to ignorance of the law, and plain reason, not to mention, legal axioms.
> 
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> *— George Mason*_, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788_
> Only well regulated militia of the whole People, a few public officials excepted, are declared Necessary, the unorganized militia is not declared Necessary and may be Infringed by well regulated militia, when Necessary for the security of a free State.
> 
> Our supreme law of the land is about the resolution of any conflict of laws, not the whole and entire concept of natural or individual rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then the 2nd would have ended at the second comma, since it didn’t, it is expressing a right granted beyond the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the punctuation changes nothing.  you can remove all of it, and it means the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The punctuation means everything. It’s why the 2nd is in The Bill of Rights. Using your logic, the article would not be within the 1st 10 articles at all.
> 
> The 1st 10 outline individual rights, and the 2nd would be so out of place as to be laughable.
> 
> It would be like adding The History of the Ford Mustang within the Old Testament.
> 
> A really bad placement.
> 
> The founding fathers were not dumb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't.  The actual words, mean something, not the punctuation.  Our Second Amendment is completely legible and means the same thing, with out, "punctuation on the right wing".
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Using your logic, the article should read:
> 
> A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Anything beyond the period would not be necessary.
> 
> OR:
> 
> A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State the right of the MILITIA to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed
> 
> Yet, neither is true, and it’s placement in the articles that give INDIVIDUAL rights make the actual wording of:
> 
> 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
> 
> Completely understandable, that, it is the individuals the right.
> 
> PERIOD.
Click to expand...

That is Your story bro.  Our Founding Fathers were more liberal than that; and included civil rights to limit Government propaganda and rhetoric, being executed into legal dogma.

Congress has no authority to deny or disparage the People from military service and keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.


----------



## Pop23

danielpalos said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then the 2nd would have ended at the second comma, since it didn’t, it is expressing a right granted beyond the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> the punctuation changes nothing.  you can remove all of it, and it means the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The punctuation means everything. It’s why the 2nd is in The Bill of Rights. Using your logic, the article would not be within the 1st 10 articles at all.
> 
> The 1st 10 outline individual rights, and the 2nd would be so out of place as to be laughable.
> 
> It would be like adding The History of the Ford Mustang within the Old Testament.
> 
> A really bad placement.
> 
> The founding fathers were not dumb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't.  The actual words, mean something, not the punctuation.  Our Second Amendment is completely legible and means the same thing, with out, "punctuation on the right wing".
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Using your logic, the article should read:
> 
> A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Anything beyond the period would not be necessary.
> 
> OR:
> 
> A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State the right of the MILITIA to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed
> 
> Yet, neither is true, and it’s placement in the articles that give INDIVIDUAL rights make the actual wording of:
> 
> 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
> 
> Completely understandable, that, it is the individuals the right.
> 
> PERIOD.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is Your story bro.  Our Founding Fathers were more liberal than that; and included civil rights to limit Government propaganda and rhetoric, being executed into legal dogma.
> 
> Congress has no authority to deny or disparage the People from military service and keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
Click to expand...

Nice, except for its inclusion within the BILL OF RIGHTS, which of course would make zero sense using your logic. But it’s there, so.

Yours is the nice story Bro.


----------



## westwall

Daryl Hunt said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> Applying 21st Century mores to 18th Century thinking is an exercise in vanity.
> 
> The militia is bound to the right.  The right is not bound to the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to follow the meaning of the 2nd amendment, the Militia is bound to the Government which should be neither right nor left, it just is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you really don'tunderstand the English language do you.  The Militia was a COUNTER to the government.  It wasn't bound to the government, it was a defense FROM the government.
> 
> "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
> - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
> 
> "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787
> 
> "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787
> 
> "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
> - Thomas Jefferson, _Commonplace Book_ (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
> 
> "The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824
> 
> "To disarm the people..._s the most effectual way to enslave them."
> - George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 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
> 
> "Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, *and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."*
> - James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And on and on and on.  The 2nd Amendment is the ultimate defender of ALL other Rights.  Or, as a much smarter person than I ever said, "the Bill of Rights is nine limitations on what government can do....and one, final option."_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say which government.  You assumed I meant the Federal Government while you are looking for a fight or just trying to be right.  You are kind of right.  But the 2nd amendment is what gives the States the right to have State Militias seperate from the Federal Forces and even the National Guard.  The State can raise an army if it feels the need.  And THAT is the Organized Militia, not the National Guard which can be Nationalized.  But the first half of the 2nd amendment is probably not necessary so much anymore and is primarily used by nutjobs that just want to run around the woods calling themselves Militias.  I call them potential Lynch Mobs.  But a few states still have State Guards and do use them in case of Emergency when one arises.   It really burns Femas drawers when the State Guard takes charge and Fema has to work for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try, but there is no Bill of Rights for any other government so you had to be talking about our Federal government.  and,  you are wrong.  The 2nd Amendment enumerates a Right of the individual to keep arms for their own PRIVATE defense.  It conveys no Rights to the State at all.  The State after all IS power.  The ridiculous claim that the 2nd gives the government the right to arm itself is simply stupid.  States have no Rights.  PEOPLE DO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's take  a look at the 2nd amendment and break it into two parts.
> 
> *A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,
> *
> This was put into place to prevent the Federal Government from becoming all powerful.  Our Founding Fathers were downright paranoid about this after just finishing a war with England.  In fact, they were so paranoid that they limited the Federals to no more than a 75,000 man standing army which would not be enough to even stand against one state's organized militia much less all of them.  But going into WWI, Congress inacted the National Guard Act of 1917 that allowed the Federal Government to fund the Guard Units in the States right around 120 days a year and the Feds could call up the Guard Units.  But they did add a provision that stated that the State could create a States Guard seperate from the National Guard where those in it that were not eligible to be called up could stay with the state guard.  States could have members that were in both Guard Organizations but in the even of federalization, those people would become Federal Troops.  Also, those that still had a commitment to their Military time (i.e. 4 years for some and 10 for others after they leave the active duty service) could serve with the state guard but would be federalized.  This means that states like Texas has a State Guard that is still very strong today which is mostly comprised of Local Police, Sheriffs, Texas Rangers, Fire Fighters and such that cannot be called up and can be used by the Texas Governor as the Old Guard used to be used for including in case of a Rogue Federal Government Uprising.  But the first half of the 2nd amendment really has been watered down and probably needs to be amended to keep it current as there is very little chance that the Federal Military would follow orders to suppress any given state.  You see, it's written into the UCMJ (the Military Constitution) to prevent that from happening.
> 
> 
> *the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> *
> We also need to include the 14th amendment as well.  This right is within your own home and pertains to adequate protection weapons.  You may believe a pungee pit should be used to protect your property or a high amperage high voltage electric shock on your welcome matt but I don't know of any lawyer that could keep you from prison if you actually had to use such a thing.  It's excess.  The state, under the 14th amendment can rule what is in excess for firearms.  It's usually under the reasoning of Public Safety.  They can determine that you need to be registered to carry a weapon (not open carry) on the street and then make it almost impossible for you to actually get the permit (case in point NYC) in a timely manner ( years or more) but they have to offer it.  They can't say you can't have a bazooka but they can make it almost impossible for you to get the permit to have one for various reasons.  They can't say that you can't own a fully Automatic Weapon of any kind but they can fix it so they are just plain unavailable by either making them too expensive (a real M-16-A-1 in junk condition starts at 15,000 dollars) or makes it almost impossible to comply with the storage requirements or makes it almost impossible to gain the proper permit to have it. (Again, NYC).  None of these methods are against the Second amendment and are well within the 14th amendment according to the many rulings by the Supreme Courts over the past decades.  They can rule that one type of weapon is in excess for home defense while others are not.  They can make a rule for an age limit on purchasing firearms and ammo.  They can limit the Mag Sizes.  They can outlaw the sale of the ability to use certain addons.  The list goes on and on.  And all have been upheld by the Supreme Court.  That pretty well means that they are Constitutional.  Maybe not moral but constitutional.
> 
> What I hold is that we need to amend the 2nd amendment to remove the ambiguity that it has in today's world.  200 years ago, it was so much simpler.  But since 1850 (circa) we have long since outgrown it's simple wording.  One side says vehemently that we need to get rid of the 2nd amendment while another faction says we need to follow the second half word for word without any other thoughts.  Both sides will continue this war but people are getting killed or maybe needlessly in fear of their lives over this "Debate".  I won't really call it a debate.  Both sides are just yelling over the fence at each other and neither is listening.  What we need is a starting dialogue to get it settled and updated to todays standards.  It's not 1775 anymore and our weapons have outgrown the Muskets by far.  And our Population is more dense than it ever has been before.  There has to be a balance between the right to bear arms and Public Safety.  This means we have to stop the yelling while hold our hands over our ears and come to a decent set of decisions before another group (Politicians) that are less qualified does it for us.
Click to expand...








There have been State Militias (hell, there were State Navies!) since before the country was founded.  You are presenting history that has no bearing at all on the 2nd Amendment, nor on why it was written in the first place.  The 2nd Amendment is not ambiguous in the slightest.  It's wording was exceptionally well thought out.  That part about "well regulated" when you look at that particular phrase from that era (actually first used in the 1650's) simply meant "in good working order".  That's why you see clocks with that marking on their backplates.  Kind of silly to have a well regulated clock in the legal sense, but makes complete sense when the actual meaning is known.


----------



## danielpalos

Pop23 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> the punctuation changes nothing.  you can remove all of it, and it means the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The punctuation means everything. It’s why the 2nd is in The Bill of Rights. Using your logic, the article would not be within the 1st 10 articles at all.
> 
> The 1st 10 outline individual rights, and the 2nd would be so out of place as to be laughable.
> 
> It would be like adding The History of the Ford Mustang within the Old Testament.
> 
> A really bad placement.
> 
> The founding fathers were not dumb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't.  The actual words, mean something, not the punctuation.  Our Second Amendment is completely legible and means the same thing, with out, "punctuation on the right wing".
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Using your logic, the article should read:
> 
> A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Anything beyond the period would not be necessary.
> 
> OR:
> 
> A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State the right of the MILITIA to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed
> 
> Yet, neither is true, and it’s placement in the articles that give INDIVIDUAL rights make the actual wording of:
> 
> 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
> 
> Completely understandable, that, it is the individuals the right.
> 
> PERIOD.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is Your story bro.  Our Founding Fathers were more liberal than that; and included civil rights to limit Government propaganda and rhetoric, being executed into legal dogma.
> 
> Congress has no authority to deny or disparage the People from military service and keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice, except for its inclusion within the BILL OF RIGHTS, which of course would make zero sense using your logic. But it’s there, so.
> 
> Yours is the nice story Bro.
Click to expand...

The security of a free State to its well regulated militia, is a States' sovereign right.  It says so in our Second Amendment.


----------



## danielpalos

westwall said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to follow the meaning of the 2nd amendment, the Militia is bound to the Government which should be neither right nor left, it just is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you really don'tunderstand the English language do you.  The Militia was a COUNTER to the government.  It wasn't bound to the government, it was a defense FROM the government.
> 
> "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
> - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
> 
> "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787
> 
> "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787
> 
> "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
> - Thomas Jefferson, _Commonplace Book_ (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
> 
> "The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824
> 
> "To disarm the people..._s the most effectual way to enslave them."
> - George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 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
> 
> "Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, *and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."*
> - James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And on and on and on.  The 2nd Amendment is the ultimate defender of ALL other Rights.  Or, as a much smarter person than I ever said, "the Bill of Rights is nine limitations on what government can do....and one, final option."_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say which government.  You assumed I meant the Federal Government while you are looking for a fight or just trying to be right.  You are kind of right.  But the 2nd amendment is what gives the States the right to have State Militias seperate from the Federal Forces and even the National Guard.  The State can raise an army if it feels the need.  And THAT is the Organized Militia, not the National Guard which can be Nationalized.  But the first half of the 2nd amendment is probably not necessary so much anymore and is primarily used by nutjobs that just want to run around the woods calling themselves Militias.  I call them potential Lynch Mobs.  But a few states still have State Guards and do use them in case of Emergency when one arises.   It really burns Femas drawers when the State Guard takes charge and Fema has to work for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try, but there is no Bill of Rights for any other government so you had to be talking about our Federal government.  and,  you are wrong.  The 2nd Amendment enumerates a Right of the individual to keep arms for their own PRIVATE defense.  It conveys no Rights to the State at all.  The State after all IS power.  The ridiculous claim that the 2nd gives the government the right to arm itself is simply stupid.  States have no Rights.  PEOPLE DO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's take  a look at the 2nd amendment and break it into two parts.
> 
> *A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,
> *
> This was put into place to prevent the Federal Government from becoming all powerful.  Our Founding Fathers were downright paranoid about this after just finishing a war with England.  In fact, they were so paranoid that they limited the Federals to no more than a 75,000 man standing army which would not be enough to even stand against one state's organized militia much less all of them.  But going into WWI, Congress inacted the National Guard Act of 1917 that allowed the Federal Government to fund the Guard Units in the States right around 120 days a year and the Feds could call up the Guard Units.  But they did add a provision that stated that the State could create a States Guard seperate from the National Guard where those in it that were not eligible to be called up could stay with the state guard.  States could have members that were in both Guard Organizations but in the even of federalization, those people would become Federal Troops.  Also, those that still had a commitment to their Military time (i.e. 4 years for some and 10 for others after they leave the active duty service) could serve with the state guard but would be federalized.  This means that states like Texas has a State Guard that is still very strong today which is mostly comprised of Local Police, Sheriffs, Texas Rangers, Fire Fighters and such that cannot be called up and can be used by the Texas Governor as the Old Guard used to be used for including in case of a Rogue Federal Government Uprising.  But the first half of the 2nd amendment really has been watered down and probably needs to be amended to keep it current as there is very little chance that the Federal Military would follow orders to suppress any given state.  You see, it's written into the UCMJ (the Military Constitution) to prevent that from happening.
> 
> 
> *the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> *
> We also need to include the 14th amendment as well.  This right is within your own home and pertains to adequate protection weapons.  You may believe a pungee pit should be used to protect your property or a high amperage high voltage electric shock on your welcome matt but I don't know of any lawyer that could keep you from prison if you actually had to use such a thing.  It's excess.  The state, under the 14th amendment can rule what is in excess for firearms.  It's usually under the reasoning of Public Safety.  They can determine that you need to be registered to carry a weapon (not open carry) on the street and then make it almost impossible for you to actually get the permit (case in point NYC) in a timely manner ( years or more) but they have to offer it.  They can't say you can't have a bazooka but they can make it almost impossible for you to get the permit to have one for various reasons.  They can't say that you can't own a fully Automatic Weapon of any kind but they can fix it so they are just plain unavailable by either making them too expensive (a real M-16-A-1 in junk condition starts at 15,000 dollars) or makes it almost impossible to comply with the storage requirements or makes it almost impossible to gain the proper permit to have it. (Again, NYC).  None of these methods are against the Second amendment and are well within the 14th amendment according to the many rulings by the Supreme Courts over the past decades.  They can rule that one type of weapon is in excess for home defense while others are not.  They can make a rule for an age limit on purchasing firearms and ammo.  They can limit the Mag Sizes.  They can outlaw the sale of the ability to use certain addons.  The list goes on and on.  And all have been upheld by the Supreme Court.  That pretty well means that they are Constitutional.  Maybe not moral but constitutional.
> 
> What I hold is that we need to amend the 2nd amendment to remove the ambiguity that it has in today's world.  200 years ago, it was so much simpler.  But since 1850 (circa) we have long since outgrown it's simple wording.  One side says vehemently that we need to get rid of the 2nd amendment while another faction says we need to follow the second half word for word without any other thoughts.  Both sides will continue this war but people are getting killed or maybe needlessly in fear of their lives over this "Debate".  I won't really call it a debate.  Both sides are just yelling over the fence at each other and neither is listening.  What we need is a starting dialogue to get it settled and updated to todays standards.  It's not 1775 anymore and our weapons have outgrown the Muskets by far.  And our Population is more dense than it ever has been before.  There has to be a balance between the right to bear arms and Public Safety.  This means we have to stop the yelling while hold our hands over our ears and come to a decent set of decisions before another group (Politicians) that are less qualified does it for us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There have been State Militias (hell, there were State Navies!) since before the country was founded.  You are presenting history that has no bearing at all on the 2nd Amendment, nor on why it was written in the first place.  The 2nd Amendment is not ambiguous in the slightest.  It's wording was exceptionally well thought out.  That part about "well regulated" when you look at that particular phrase from that era (actually first used in the 1650's) simply meant "in good working order".  That's why you see clocks with that marking on their backplates.  Kind of silly to have a well regulated clock in the legal sense, but makes complete sense when the actual meaning is known.
Click to expand...

There is Only one federal Constitution for our Body Politic.


----------



## evenflow1969

Daryl Hunt said:


> I won't look at today.  I will look at the time around 1790.
> 
> *Militia Act of 1792*
> _Every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.
> _
> First we need to look at who was a Citizen in 1790s.  In the 1790s, ALL Blacks even free Blacks were prohibited from owning and carrying firearms.  All People even whites that would not swear allegiance to the newly formed United States were prohibited from owning or carrying fire arms.  Women were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms.  Bonded Slaves, even whites were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms of any kind.  It all pretty much boiled down that a Citizen was a Free White Male Land Owner deemed to be in good standing with the Existing Government both Stated and Federal Governments.  It's been estimated that only about 8% of the population from that time met the full requirement to own, possess and carry firearms legally.  Remember, more than half of the population of that time either supported the Crown or leaned heavily in that direction.  The Newly Formed Colonist Government did exactly what the British Government tried to do themselves.
> 
> There were two rebellions that made the Militia Act of 1792 to be written and adopted.  The Shays Rebellion of 1786-1787 and the Whiskey Rebellion 1791-1794.  While neither amounted to much, the founding fathers were scared to death that something else might come up that might endanger the newly formed Government so they adopted the 2nd Amendment as it was written since there was no Standing Army to prevent any decent resurrection from becoming successful.    It was left up to each state individually to provide the militias to prevent it from happening.  As long as the states agreed and didn't go to war with each other.
> 
> Using the original definition, if you don't own your House, Farm or Business and you don't completely and blindly support our current Government then are not a Citizen in Good Standings and will not be afforded the right to own, posses or carry any form of Firearms.  Oh, and you must be a Free White Male as well.


That sounds like a profesional soldiers battle pack at the time. Translate to today we should all be armed with M!6s As well as tent,knap sack,canteen and shovel. Along with a shit load of ammo!


----------



## Likkmee

Can I answer with a question ? Thanks, I knew you'd bleat YETH !
scenario. You drive home from a dart game at ____ place and roll in the garage and shut the door behind you. OK ?
You meander up the stairs and open the door, entering the sala ? SI ?
There is your beautiful wife with a Mezkin, 2 large Negroids and a one legged Chinese/Catholic , converted Jew transvestite priest , one in each hole.
You sceeam WHATTAFUKK and from the twins bedroom you hear DADDY HELP !

Your thoughts again on the second amendment( and CC permit) ?
 I thought so.


----------



## Pop23

danielpalos said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The punctuation means everything. It’s why the 2nd is in The Bill of Rights. Using your logic, the article would not be within the 1st 10 articles at all.
> 
> The 1st 10 outline individual rights, and the 2nd would be so out of place as to be laughable.
> 
> It would be like adding The History of the Ford Mustang within the Old Testament.
> 
> A really bad placement.
> 
> The founding fathers were not dumb.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't.  The actual words, mean something, not the punctuation.  Our Second Amendment is completely legible and means the same thing, with out, "punctuation on the right wing".
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Using your logic, the article should read:
> 
> A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Anything beyond the period would not be necessary.
> 
> OR:
> 
> A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State the right of the MILITIA to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed
> 
> Yet, neither is true, and it’s placement in the articles that give INDIVIDUAL rights make the actual wording of:
> 
> 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
> 
> Completely understandable, that, it is the individuals the right.
> 
> PERIOD.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is Your story bro.  Our Founding Fathers were more liberal than that; and included civil rights to limit Government propaganda and rhetoric, being executed into legal dogma.
> 
> Congress has no authority to deny or disparage the People from military service and keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice, except for its inclusion within the BILL OF RIGHTS, which of course would make zero sense using your logic. But it’s there, so.
> 
> Yours is the nice story Bro.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The security of a free State to its well regulated militia, is a States' sovereign right.  It says so in our Second Amendment.
Click to expand...


WTF?

In the part of the constitution (the bill of rights) that expresses the rights of the INDIVIDUAL, they decided to lump in that A STATE HAS THE RIGHT TO FORM A MILITIA?

That makes absolutely ZERO sense.


----------



## westwall

danielpalos said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you really don'tunderstand the English language do you.  The Militia was a COUNTER to the government.  It wasn't bound to the government, it was a defense FROM the government.
> 
> "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
> - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
> 
> "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787
> 
> "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787
> 
> "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
> - Thomas Jefferson, _Commonplace Book_ (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
> 
> "The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824
> 
> "To disarm the people..._s the most effectual way to enslave them."
> - George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 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
> 
> "Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, *and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."*
> - James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And on and on and on.  The 2nd Amendment is the ultimate defender of ALL other Rights.  Or, as a much smarter person than I ever said, "the Bill of Rights is nine limitations on what government can do....and one, final option."_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say which government.  You assumed I meant the Federal Government while you are looking for a fight or just trying to be right.  You are kind of right.  But the 2nd amendment is what gives the States the right to have State Militias seperate from the Federal Forces and even the National Guard.  The State can raise an army if it feels the need.  And THAT is the Organized Militia, not the National Guard which can be Nationalized.  But the first half of the 2nd amendment is probably not necessary so much anymore and is primarily used by nutjobs that just want to run around the woods calling themselves Militias.  I call them potential Lynch Mobs.  But a few states still have State Guards and do use them in case of Emergency when one arises.   It really burns Femas drawers when the State Guard takes charge and Fema has to work for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try, but there is no Bill of Rights for any other government so you had to be talking about our Federal government.  and,  you are wrong.  The 2nd Amendment enumerates a Right of the individual to keep arms for their own PRIVATE defense.  It conveys no Rights to the State at all.  The State after all IS power.  The ridiculous claim that the 2nd gives the government the right to arm itself is simply stupid.  States have no Rights.  PEOPLE DO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's take  a look at the 2nd amendment and break it into two parts.
> 
> *A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,
> *
> This was put into place to prevent the Federal Government from becoming all powerful.  Our Founding Fathers were downright paranoid about this after just finishing a war with England.  In fact, they were so paranoid that they limited the Federals to no more than a 75,000 man standing army which would not be enough to even stand against one state's organized militia much less all of them.  But going into WWI, Congress inacted the National Guard Act of 1917 that allowed the Federal Government to fund the Guard Units in the States right around 120 days a year and the Feds could call up the Guard Units.  But they did add a provision that stated that the State could create a States Guard seperate from the National Guard where those in it that were not eligible to be called up could stay with the state guard.  States could have members that were in both Guard Organizations but in the even of federalization, those people would become Federal Troops.  Also, those that still had a commitment to their Military time (i.e. 4 years for some and 10 for others after they leave the active duty service) could serve with the state guard but would be federalized.  This means that states like Texas has a State Guard that is still very strong today which is mostly comprised of Local Police, Sheriffs, Texas Rangers, Fire Fighters and such that cannot be called up and can be used by the Texas Governor as the Old Guard used to be used for including in case of a Rogue Federal Government Uprising.  But the first half of the 2nd amendment really has been watered down and probably needs to be amended to keep it current as there is very little chance that the Federal Military would follow orders to suppress any given state.  You see, it's written into the UCMJ (the Military Constitution) to prevent that from happening.
> 
> 
> *the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> *
> We also need to include the 14th amendment as well.  This right is within your own home and pertains to adequate protection weapons.  You may believe a pungee pit should be used to protect your property or a high amperage high voltage electric shock on your welcome matt but I don't know of any lawyer that could keep you from prison if you actually had to use such a thing.  It's excess.  The state, under the 14th amendment can rule what is in excess for firearms.  It's usually under the reasoning of Public Safety.  They can determine that you need to be registered to carry a weapon (not open carry) on the street and then make it almost impossible for you to actually get the permit (case in point NYC) in a timely manner ( years or more) but they have to offer it.  They can't say you can't have a bazooka but they can make it almost impossible for you to get the permit to have one for various reasons.  They can't say that you can't own a fully Automatic Weapon of any kind but they can fix it so they are just plain unavailable by either making them too expensive (a real M-16-A-1 in junk condition starts at 15,000 dollars) or makes it almost impossible to comply with the storage requirements or makes it almost impossible to gain the proper permit to have it. (Again, NYC).  None of these methods are against the Second amendment and are well within the 14th amendment according to the many rulings by the Supreme Courts over the past decades.  They can rule that one type of weapon is in excess for home defense while others are not.  They can make a rule for an age limit on purchasing firearms and ammo.  They can limit the Mag Sizes.  They can outlaw the sale of the ability to use certain addons.  The list goes on and on.  And all have been upheld by the Supreme Court.  That pretty well means that they are Constitutional.  Maybe not moral but constitutional.
> 
> What I hold is that we need to amend the 2nd amendment to remove the ambiguity that it has in today's world.  200 years ago, it was so much simpler.  But since 1850 (circa) we have long since outgrown it's simple wording.  One side says vehemently that we need to get rid of the 2nd amendment while another faction says we need to follow the second half word for word without any other thoughts.  Both sides will continue this war but people are getting killed or maybe needlessly in fear of their lives over this "Debate".  I won't really call it a debate.  Both sides are just yelling over the fence at each other and neither is listening.  What we need is a starting dialogue to get it settled and updated to todays standards.  It's not 1775 anymore and our weapons have outgrown the Muskets by far.  And our Population is more dense than it ever has been before.  There has to be a balance between the right to bear arms and Public Safety.  This means we have to stop the yelling while hold our hands over our ears and come to a decent set of decisions before another group (Politicians) that are less qualified does it for us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There have been State Militias (hell, there were State Navies!) since before the country was founded.  You are presenting history that has no bearing at all on the 2nd Amendment, nor on why it was written in the first place.  The 2nd Amendment is not ambiguous in the slightest.  It's wording was exceptionally well thought out.  That part about "well regulated" when you look at that particular phrase from that era (actually first used in the 1650's) simply meant "in good working order".  That's why you see clocks with that marking on their backplates.  Kind of silly to have a well regulated clock in the legal sense, but makes complete sense when the actual meaning is known.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is Only one federal Constitution for our Body Politic.
Click to expand...






Yes, and the PEOPLE *are* the body politic.  NOT the government which is supposed to be the SERVANT of the people.


----------



## danielpalos

Likkmee said:


> Can I answer with a question ? Thanks, I knew you'd bleat YETH !
> scenario. You drive home from a dart game at ____ place and roll in the garage and shut the door behind you. OK ?
> You meander up the stairs and open the door, entering the sala ? SI ?
> There is your beautiful wife with a Mezkin, 2 large Negroids and a one legged Chinese/Catholic , converted Jew transvestite priest , one in each hole.
> You sceeam WHATTAFUKK and from the twins bedroom you hear DADDY HELP !
> 
> Your thoughts again on the second amendment( and CC permit) ?
> I thought so.


out the window, when their boss comes in with his crew, and informs me they are, "collecting interest" on the loan that is a little late.


----------



## danielpalos

Pop23 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't.  The actual words, mean something, not the punctuation.  Our Second Amendment is completely legible and means the same thing, with out, "punctuation on the right wing".
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Using your logic, the article should read:
> 
> A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Anything beyond the period would not be necessary.
> 
> OR:
> 
> A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State the right of the MILITIA to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed
> 
> Yet, neither is true, and it’s placement in the articles that give INDIVIDUAL rights make the actual wording of:
> 
> 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
> 
> Completely understandable, that, it is the individuals the right.
> 
> PERIOD.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is Your story bro.  Our Founding Fathers were more liberal than that; and included civil rights to limit Government propaganda and rhetoric, being executed into legal dogma.
> 
> Congress has no authority to deny or disparage the People from military service and keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice, except for its inclusion within the BILL OF RIGHTS, which of course would make zero sense using your logic. But it’s there, so.
> 
> Yours is the nice story Bro.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The security of a free State to its well regulated militia, is a States' sovereign right.  It says so in our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTF?
> 
> In the part of the constitution (the bill of rights) that expresses the rights of the INDIVIDUAL, they decided to lump in that A STATE HAS THE RIGHT TO FORM A MILITIA?
> 
> That makes absolutely ZERO sense.
Click to expand...

You make zero sense.  The actual words in our Second Amendment clearly declare what is Necessary to the security of a free State; it is mostly definitely not, the whole and entire concept of natural and individual rights.


----------



## danielpalos

westwall said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say which government.  You assumed I meant the Federal Government while you are looking for a fight or just trying to be right.  You are kind of right.  But the 2nd amendment is what gives the States the right to have State Militias seperate from the Federal Forces and even the National Guard.  The State can raise an army if it feels the need.  And THAT is the Organized Militia, not the National Guard which can be Nationalized.  But the first half of the 2nd amendment is probably not necessary so much anymore and is primarily used by nutjobs that just want to run around the woods calling themselves Militias.  I call them potential Lynch Mobs.  But a few states still have State Guards and do use them in case of Emergency when one arises.   It really burns Femas drawers when the State Guard takes charge and Fema has to work for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try, but there is no Bill of Rights for any other government so you had to be talking about our Federal government.  and,  you are wrong.  The 2nd Amendment enumerates a Right of the individual to keep arms for their own PRIVATE defense.  It conveys no Rights to the State at all.  The State after all IS power.  The ridiculous claim that the 2nd gives the government the right to arm itself is simply stupid.  States have no Rights.  PEOPLE DO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's take  a look at the 2nd amendment and break it into two parts.
> 
> *A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,
> *
> This was put into place to prevent the Federal Government from becoming all powerful.  Our Founding Fathers were downright paranoid about this after just finishing a war with England.  In fact, they were so paranoid that they limited the Federals to no more than a 75,000 man standing army which would not be enough to even stand against one state's organized militia much less all of them.  But going into WWI, Congress inacted the National Guard Act of 1917 that allowed the Federal Government to fund the Guard Units in the States right around 120 days a year and the Feds could call up the Guard Units.  But they did add a provision that stated that the State could create a States Guard seperate from the National Guard where those in it that were not eligible to be called up could stay with the state guard.  States could have members that were in both Guard Organizations but in the even of federalization, those people would become Federal Troops.  Also, those that still had a commitment to their Military time (i.e. 4 years for some and 10 for others after they leave the active duty service) could serve with the state guard but would be federalized.  This means that states like Texas has a State Guard that is still very strong today which is mostly comprised of Local Police, Sheriffs, Texas Rangers, Fire Fighters and such that cannot be called up and can be used by the Texas Governor as the Old Guard used to be used for including in case of a Rogue Federal Government Uprising.  But the first half of the 2nd amendment really has been watered down and probably needs to be amended to keep it current as there is very little chance that the Federal Military would follow orders to suppress any given state.  You see, it's written into the UCMJ (the Military Constitution) to prevent that from happening.
> 
> 
> *the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> *
> We also need to include the 14th amendment as well.  This right is within your own home and pertains to adequate protection weapons.  You may believe a pungee pit should be used to protect your property or a high amperage high voltage electric shock on your welcome matt but I don't know of any lawyer that could keep you from prison if you actually had to use such a thing.  It's excess.  The state, under the 14th amendment can rule what is in excess for firearms.  It's usually under the reasoning of Public Safety.  They can determine that you need to be registered to carry a weapon (not open carry) on the street and then make it almost impossible for you to actually get the permit (case in point NYC) in a timely manner ( years or more) but they have to offer it.  They can't say you can't have a bazooka but they can make it almost impossible for you to get the permit to have one for various reasons.  They can't say that you can't own a fully Automatic Weapon of any kind but they can fix it so they are just plain unavailable by either making them too expensive (a real M-16-A-1 in junk condition starts at 15,000 dollars) or makes it almost impossible to comply with the storage requirements or makes it almost impossible to gain the proper permit to have it. (Again, NYC).  None of these methods are against the Second amendment and are well within the 14th amendment according to the many rulings by the Supreme Courts over the past decades.  They can rule that one type of weapon is in excess for home defense while others are not.  They can make a rule for an age limit on purchasing firearms and ammo.  They can limit the Mag Sizes.  They can outlaw the sale of the ability to use certain addons.  The list goes on and on.  And all have been upheld by the Supreme Court.  That pretty well means that they are Constitutional.  Maybe not moral but constitutional.
> 
> What I hold is that we need to amend the 2nd amendment to remove the ambiguity that it has in today's world.  200 years ago, it was so much simpler.  But since 1850 (circa) we have long since outgrown it's simple wording.  One side says vehemently that we need to get rid of the 2nd amendment while another faction says we need to follow the second half word for word without any other thoughts.  Both sides will continue this war but people are getting killed or maybe needlessly in fear of their lives over this "Debate".  I won't really call it a debate.  Both sides are just yelling over the fence at each other and neither is listening.  What we need is a starting dialogue to get it settled and updated to todays standards.  It's not 1775 anymore and our weapons have outgrown the Muskets by far.  And our Population is more dense than it ever has been before.  There has to be a balance between the right to bear arms and Public Safety.  This means we have to stop the yelling while hold our hands over our ears and come to a decent set of decisions before another group (Politicians) that are less qualified does it for us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There have been State Militias (hell, there were State Navies!) since before the country was founded.  You are presenting history that has no bearing at all on the 2nd Amendment, nor on why it was written in the first place.  The 2nd Amendment is not ambiguous in the slightest.  It's wording was exceptionally well thought out.  That part about "well regulated" when you look at that particular phrase from that era (actually first used in the 1650's) simply meant "in good working order".  That's why you see clocks with that marking on their backplates.  Kind of silly to have a well regulated clock in the legal sense, but makes complete sense when the actual meaning is known.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is Only one federal Constitution for our Body Politic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and the PEOPLE *are* the body politic.  NOT the government which is supposed to be the SERVANT of the people.
Click to expand...

Yes, we are; especially when exercising the franchise.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

danielpalos said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try, but there is no Bill of Rights for any other government so you had to be talking about our Federal government.  and,  you are wrong.  The 2nd Amendment enumerates a Right of the individual to keep arms for their own PRIVATE defense.  It conveys no Rights to the State at all.  The State after all IS power.  The ridiculous claim that the 2nd gives the government the right to arm itself is simply stupid.  States have no Rights.  PEOPLE DO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's take  a look at the 2nd amendment and break it into two parts.
> 
> *A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,
> *
> This was put into place to prevent the Federal Government from becoming all powerful.  Our Founding Fathers were downright paranoid about this after just finishing a war with England.  In fact, they were so paranoid that they limited the Federals to no more than a 75,000 man standing army which would not be enough to even stand against one state's organized militia much less all of them.  But going into WWI, Congress inacted the National Guard Act of 1917 that allowed the Federal Government to fund the Guard Units in the States right around 120 days a year and the Feds could call up the Guard Units.  But they did add a provision that stated that the State could create a States Guard seperate from the National Guard where those in it that were not eligible to be called up could stay with the state guard.  States could have members that were in both Guard Organizations but in the even of federalization, those people would become Federal Troops.  Also, those that still had a commitment to their Military time (i.e. 4 years for some and 10 for others after they leave the active duty service) could serve with the state guard but would be federalized.  This means that states like Texas has a State Guard that is still very strong today which is mostly comprised of Local Police, Sheriffs, Texas Rangers, Fire Fighters and such that cannot be called up and can be used by the Texas Governor as the Old Guard used to be used for including in case of a Rogue Federal Government Uprising.  But the first half of the 2nd amendment really has been watered down and probably needs to be amended to keep it current as there is very little chance that the Federal Military would follow orders to suppress any given state.  You see, it's written into the UCMJ (the Military Constitution) to prevent that from happening.
> 
> 
> *the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> *
> We also need to include the 14th amendment as well.  This right is within your own home and pertains to adequate protection weapons.  You may believe a pungee pit should be used to protect your property or a high amperage high voltage electric shock on your welcome matt but I don't know of any lawyer that could keep you from prison if you actually had to use such a thing.  It's excess.  The state, under the 14th amendment can rule what is in excess for firearms.  It's usually under the reasoning of Public Safety.  They can determine that you need to be registered to carry a weapon (not open carry) on the street and then make it almost impossible for you to actually get the permit (case in point NYC) in a timely manner ( years or more) but they have to offer it.  They can't say you can't have a bazooka but they can make it almost impossible for you to get the permit to have one for various reasons.  They can't say that you can't own a fully Automatic Weapon of any kind but they can fix it so they are just plain unavailable by either making them too expensive (a real M-16-A-1 in junk condition starts at 15,000 dollars) or makes it almost impossible to comply with the storage requirements or makes it almost impossible to gain the proper permit to have it. (Again, NYC).  None of these methods are against the Second amendment and are well within the 14th amendment according to the many rulings by the Supreme Courts over the past decades.  They can rule that one type of weapon is in excess for home defense while others are not.  They can make a rule for an age limit on purchasing firearms and ammo.  They can limit the Mag Sizes.  They can outlaw the sale of the ability to use certain addons.  The list goes on and on.  And all have been upheld by the Supreme Court.  That pretty well means that they are Constitutional.  Maybe not moral but constitutional.
> 
> What I hold is that we need to amend the 2nd amendment to remove the ambiguity that it has in today's world.  200 years ago, it was so much simpler.  But since 1850 (circa) we have long since outgrown it's simple wording.  One side says vehemently that we need to get rid of the 2nd amendment while another faction says we need to follow the second half word for word without any other thoughts.  Both sides will continue this war but people are getting killed or maybe needlessly in fear of their lives over this "Debate".  I won't really call it a debate.  Both sides are just yelling over the fence at each other and neither is listening.  What we need is a starting dialogue to get it settled and updated to todays standards.  It's not 1775 anymore and our weapons have outgrown the Muskets by far.  And our Population is more dense than it ever has been before.  There has to be a balance between the right to bear arms and Public Safety.  This means we have to stop the yelling while hold our hands over our ears and come to a decent set of decisions before another group (Politicians) that are less qualified does it for us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There have been State Militias (hell, there were State Navies!) since before the country was founded.  You are presenting history that has no bearing at all on the 2nd Amendment, nor on why it was written in the first place.  The 2nd Amendment is not ambiguous in the slightest.  It's wording was exceptionally well thought out.  That part about "well regulated" when you look at that particular phrase from that era (actually first used in the 1650's) simply meant "in good working order".  That's why you see clocks with that marking on their backplates.  Kind of silly to have a well regulated clock in the legal sense, but makes complete sense when the actual meaning is known.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is Only one federal Constitution for our Body Politic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and the PEOPLE *are* the body politic.  NOT the government which is supposed to be the SERVANT of the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, we are; especially when exercising the franchise.
Click to expand...


That would make sense in a perfect world.  Unfortunately, we no longer control our Politicians.  They are bought and paid for by the Corporations and Cronies.  They no longer even own their own souls.  Even Satan had to surrender their souls to the corporations.  Bet that pissed him off something fierce.


----------



## WinterBorn

Daryl Hunt said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the 2nd amendment was meant as the left says it was........
> 
> WHY THE HELL WOULD IT APPEAR IN THE BILL IF RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
> 
> Clue, it wouldn’t
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We aren't governed by any part of the Bill of Rights.  We are governed by the Constitutions of the United States and the many States.  As nice and lofty as the Bill of Rights is, it's just another piece of parchment, nothing more.
Click to expand...


You are arguing that the state constitutions are what governs us?   No.  The Bill of Rights IS the US Constitution.  No, it is not all of the US Constitution, but it is part of the US Constitution.  The Bill of Rights sets the standards.  No state constitution can override what the US Constitution states.  And the Bill of Rights is part of the US Constitution.


----------



## WinterBorn

Daryl Hunt said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the 2nd amendment was meant as the left says it was........
> 
> WHY THE HELL WOULD IT APPEAR IN THE BILL IF RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
> 
> Clue, it wouldn’t
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We aren't governed by any part of the Bill of Rights.  We are governed by the Constitutions of the United States and the many States.  As nice and lofty as the Bill of Rights is, it's just another piece of parchment, nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the Bill of Rights is part of the US Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, but the Bill of Rights is not the Constitution.  It's a seperate document that has no legal standings.  The Constitution did take it's first 10 amendments from it but the constitution is more than that and is the law of the land.  The Bill of Rights is just a supporting document.  Anyone states that we must follow the bill or rights over the Constitution doesn't get my support.
Click to expand...


It is not a matter of the Bill of Rights OVER the US Constitution.  The Bill of Rights is PART of the US Constitutions.  Those amendments are TO the US Constitution.  To pretend they are separate documents is incorrect.


----------



## Pop23

danielpalos said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Using your logic, the article should read:
> 
> A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Anything beyond the period would not be necessary.
> 
> OR:
> 
> A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State the right of the MILITIA to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed
> 
> Yet, neither is true, and it’s placement in the articles that give INDIVIDUAL rights make the actual wording of:
> 
> 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
> 
> Completely understandable, that, it is the individuals the right.
> 
> PERIOD.
> 
> 
> 
> That is Your story bro.  Our Founding Fathers were more liberal than that; and included civil rights to limit Government propaganda and rhetoric, being executed into legal dogma.
> 
> Congress has no authority to deny or disparage the People from military service and keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice, except for its inclusion within the BILL OF RIGHTS, which of course would make zero sense using your logic. But it’s there, so.
> 
> Yours is the nice story Bro.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The security of a free State to its well regulated militia, is a States' sovereign right.  It says so in our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTF?
> 
> In the part of the constitution (the bill of rights) that expresses the rights of the INDIVIDUAL, they decided to lump in that A STATE HAS THE RIGHT TO FORM A MILITIA?
> 
> That makes absolutely ZERO sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You make zero sense.  The actual words in our Second Amendment clearly declare what is Necessary to the security of a free State; it is mostly definitely not, the whole and entire concept of natural and individual rights.
Click to expand...


If it’s clearly stated, then it is by the people’s right to keep and bear stems. 

Thanks.


----------



## danielpalos

Daryl Hunt said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's take  a look at the 2nd amendment and break it into two parts.
> 
> *A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,
> *
> This was put into place to prevent the Federal Government from becoming all powerful.  Our Founding Fathers were downright paranoid about this after just finishing a war with England.  In fact, they were so paranoid that they limited the Federals to no more than a 75,000 man standing army which would not be enough to even stand against one state's organized militia much less all of them.  But going into WWI, Congress inacted the National Guard Act of 1917 that allowed the Federal Government to fund the Guard Units in the States right around 120 days a year and the Feds could call up the Guard Units.  But they did add a provision that stated that the State could create a States Guard seperate from the National Guard where those in it that were not eligible to be called up could stay with the state guard.  States could have members that were in both Guard Organizations but in the even of federalization, those people would become Federal Troops.  Also, those that still had a commitment to their Military time (i.e. 4 years for some and 10 for others after they leave the active duty service) could serve with the state guard but would be federalized.  This means that states like Texas has a State Guard that is still very strong today which is mostly comprised of Local Police, Sheriffs, Texas Rangers, Fire Fighters and such that cannot be called up and can be used by the Texas Governor as the Old Guard used to be used for including in case of a Rogue Federal Government Uprising.  But the first half of the 2nd amendment really has been watered down and probably needs to be amended to keep it current as there is very little chance that the Federal Military would follow orders to suppress any given state.  You see, it's written into the UCMJ (the Military Constitution) to prevent that from happening.
> 
> 
> *the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> *
> We also need to include the 14th amendment as well.  This right is within your own home and pertains to adequate protection weapons.  You may believe a pungee pit should be used to protect your property or a high amperage high voltage electric shock on your welcome matt but I don't know of any lawyer that could keep you from prison if you actually had to use such a thing.  It's excess.  The state, under the 14th amendment can rule what is in excess for firearms.  It's usually under the reasoning of Public Safety.  They can determine that you need to be registered to carry a weapon (not open carry) on the street and then make it almost impossible for you to actually get the permit (case in point NYC) in a timely manner ( years or more) but they have to offer it.  They can't say you can't have a bazooka but they can make it almost impossible for you to get the permit to have one for various reasons.  They can't say that you can't own a fully Automatic Weapon of any kind but they can fix it so they are just plain unavailable by either making them too expensive (a real M-16-A-1 in junk condition starts at 15,000 dollars) or makes it almost impossible to comply with the storage requirements or makes it almost impossible to gain the proper permit to have it. (Again, NYC).  None of these methods are against the Second amendment and are well within the 14th amendment according to the many rulings by the Supreme Courts over the past decades.  They can rule that one type of weapon is in excess for home defense while others are not.  They can make a rule for an age limit on purchasing firearms and ammo.  They can limit the Mag Sizes.  They can outlaw the sale of the ability to use certain addons.  The list goes on and on.  And all have been upheld by the Supreme Court.  That pretty well means that they are Constitutional.  Maybe not moral but constitutional.
> 
> What I hold is that we need to amend the 2nd amendment to remove the ambiguity that it has in today's world.  200 years ago, it was so much simpler.  But since 1850 (circa) we have long since outgrown it's simple wording.  One side says vehemently that we need to get rid of the 2nd amendment while another faction says we need to follow the second half word for word without any other thoughts.  Both sides will continue this war but people are getting killed or maybe needlessly in fear of their lives over this "Debate".  I won't really call it a debate.  Both sides are just yelling over the fence at each other and neither is listening.  What we need is a starting dialogue to get it settled and updated to todays standards.  It's not 1775 anymore and our weapons have outgrown the Muskets by far.  And our Population is more dense than it ever has been before.  There has to be a balance between the right to bear arms and Public Safety.  This means we have to stop the yelling while hold our hands over our ears and come to a decent set of decisions before another group (Politicians) that are less qualified does it for us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There have been State Militias (hell, there were State Navies!) since before the country was founded.  You are presenting history that has no bearing at all on the 2nd Amendment, nor on why it was written in the first place.  The 2nd Amendment is not ambiguous in the slightest.  It's wording was exceptionally well thought out.  That part about "well regulated" when you look at that particular phrase from that era (actually first used in the 1650's) simply meant "in good working order".  That's why you see clocks with that marking on their backplates.  Kind of silly to have a well regulated clock in the legal sense, but makes complete sense when the actual meaning is known.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is Only one federal Constitution for our Body Politic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and the PEOPLE *are* the body politic.  NOT the government which is supposed to be the SERVANT of the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, we are; especially when exercising the franchise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would make sense in a perfect world.  Unfortunately, we no longer control our Politicians.  They are bought and paid for by the Corporations and Cronies.  They no longer even own their own souls.  Even Satan had to surrender their souls to the corporations.  Bet that pissed him off something fierce.
Click to expand...

vote non-incumbent, for awhile; see if they, get the message.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the 2nd amendment was meant as the left says it was........
> 
> WHY THE HELL WOULD IT APPEAR IN THE BILL IF RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
> 
> Clue, it wouldn’t
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We aren't governed by any part of the Bill of Rights.  We are governed by the Constitutions of the United States and the many States.  As nice and lofty as the Bill of Rights is, it's just another piece of parchment, nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are arguing that the state constitutions are what governs us?   No.  The Bill of Rights IS the US Constitution.  No, it is not all of the US Constitution, but it is part of the US Constitution.  The Bill of Rights sets the standards.  No state constitution can override what the US Constitution states.  And the Bill of Rights is part of the US Constitution.
Click to expand...

lol.  nobody takes the right wing seriously about our form of Government, either.  

We don't have a unitary form of federal government like State governments do. 

And, we have a doctrine of separation of powers.  Only the right wing, loves to make a federal Case out of Every Thing.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the 2nd amendment was meant as the left says it was........
> 
> WHY THE HELL WOULD IT APPEAR IN THE BILL IF RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
> 
> Clue, it wouldn’t
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We aren't governed by any part of the Bill of Rights.  We are governed by the Constitutions of the United States and the many States.  As nice and lofty as the Bill of Rights is, it's just another piece of parchment, nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the Bill of Rights is part of the US Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, but the Bill of Rights is not the Constitution.  It's a seperate document that has no legal standings.  The Constitution did take it's first 10 amendments from it but the constitution is more than that and is the law of the land.  The Bill of Rights is just a supporting document.  Anyone states that we must follow the bill or rights over the Constitution doesn't get my support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not a matter of the Bill of Rights OVER the US Constitution.  The Bill of Rights is PART of the US Constitutions.  Those amendments are TO the US Constitution.  To pretend they are separate documents is incorrect.
Click to expand...

Our Bill of Rights, is not a Constitution unto itself; they don't have their own, legal Standing without our federal Constitution.


----------



## danielpalos

Pop23 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is Your story bro.  Our Founding Fathers were more liberal than that; and included civil rights to limit Government propaganda and rhetoric, being executed into legal dogma.
> 
> Congress has no authority to deny or disparage the People from military service and keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> 
> 
> Nice, except for its inclusion within the BILL OF RIGHTS, which of course would make zero sense using your logic. But it’s there, so.
> 
> Yours is the nice story Bro.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The security of a free State to its well regulated militia, is a States' sovereign right.  It says so in our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTF?
> 
> In the part of the constitution (the bill of rights) that expresses the rights of the INDIVIDUAL, they decided to lump in that A STATE HAS THE RIGHT TO FORM A MILITIA?
> 
> That makes absolutely ZERO sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You make zero sense.  The actual words in our Second Amendment clearly declare what is Necessary to the security of a free State; it is mostly definitely not, the whole and entire concept of natural and individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it’s clearly stated, then it is by the people’s right to keep and bear stems.
> 
> Thanks.
Click to expand...

Which, Persons of the People shall not be Infringed when it is really really important, if we have to quibble, right wingers.


----------



## Pop23

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the 2nd amendment was meant as the left says it was........
> 
> WHY THE HELL WOULD IT APPEAR IN THE BILL IF RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
> 
> Clue, it wouldn’t
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We aren't governed by any part of the Bill of Rights.  We are governed by the Constitutions of the United States and the many States.  As nice and lofty as the Bill of Rights is, it's just another piece of parchment, nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the Bill of Rights is part of the US Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, but the Bill of Rights is not the Constitution.  It's a seperate document that has no legal standings.  The Constitution did take it's first 10 amendments from it but the constitution is more than that and is the law of the land.  The Bill of Rights is just a supporting document.  Anyone states that we must follow the bill or rights over the Constitution doesn't get my support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not a matter of the Bill of Rights OVER the US Constitution.  The Bill of Rights is PART of the US Constitutions.  Those amendments are TO the US Constitution.  To pretend they are separate documents is incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Bill of Rights, is not a Constitution unto itself; they don't have their own, legal Standing without our federal Constitution.
Click to expand...


It is a part of the constitution and clearly a very important part as it is relegated the starting position of all the amendments. The first 10 are delegated to the superior rights that the PEOPLE have to it's government. But for some unknown reason you think that, for some unknown purpose the Founding Fathers snuck in an amendment, near the top of this list, that served a far different purpose than securing the Peoples rights.

Un friggin real the pretzel twisting you've gone through.


----------



## Pop23

danielpalos said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice, except for its inclusion within the BILL OF RIGHTS, which of course would make zero sense using your logic. But it’s there, so.
> 
> Yours is the nice story Bro.
> 
> 
> 
> The security of a free State to its well regulated militia, is a States' sovereign right.  It says so in our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTF?
> 
> In the part of the constitution (the bill of rights) that expresses the rights of the INDIVIDUAL, they decided to lump in that A STATE HAS THE RIGHT TO FORM A MILITIA?
> 
> That makes absolutely ZERO sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You make zero sense.  The actual words in our Second Amendment clearly declare what is Necessary to the security of a free State; it is mostly definitely not, the whole and entire concept of natural and individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it’s clearly stated, then it is by the people’s right to keep and bear stems.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which, Persons of the People shall not be Infringed when it is really really important, if we have to quibble, right wingers.
Click to expand...


If you care to make an argument, do so in such a way that is understandable. That's simply gibberish.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Billy_Kinetta said:


> Applying 21st Century mores to 18th Century thinking is an exercise in vanity.
> 
> The militia is bound to the right.  The right is not bound to the militia.



That is the opinion of Scalia, and I don't recall he was there when the 2nd A. was written.  In fact he went on and on in Heller to justify his political opinion and could only convince four others.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the 2nd amendment was meant as the left says it was........
> 
> WHY THE HELL WOULD IT APPEAR IN THE BILL IF RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
> 
> Clue, it wouldn’t
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We aren't governed by any part of the Bill of Rights.  We are governed by the Constitutions of the United States and the many States.  As nice and lofty as the Bill of Rights is, it's just another piece of parchment, nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the Bill of Rights is part of the US Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, but the Bill of Rights is not the Constitution.  It's a seperate document that has no legal standings.  The Constitution did take it's first 10 amendments from it but the constitution is more than that and is the law of the land.  The Bill of Rights is just a supporting document.  Anyone states that we must follow the bill or rights over the Constitution doesn't get my support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not a matter of the Bill of Rights OVER the US Constitution.  The Bill of Rights is PART of the US Constitutions.  Those amendments are TO the US Constitution.  To pretend they are separate documents is incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Bill of Rights, is not a Constitution unto itself; they don't have their own, legal Standing without our federal Constitution.
Click to expand...


Let's clarify things, shall we?

According to Merriam Webster, the definition of "amend" is:
"*Definition of amend*
transitive verb
1 *: *to put right;  especially *: *to make emendations in (something, such as a text)

amended the manuscript
2 a *: *to change or modify (something) for the better *: *improve

amend the situation
b *: *to alter especially in phraseology;  especially *: *to alter formally by modification, deletion, or addition

amend a constitution"

This means that the amendments to the US Constitution are changes to the original document.   This also means that the Constitutional Amendments are part of the US Constitution.   And unless you can find any contradictory laws in the US Constitution, they stand as the law of the land.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the 2nd amendment was meant as the left says it was........
> 
> WHY THE HELL WOULD IT APPEAR IN THE BILL IF RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
> 
> Clue, it wouldn’t
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We aren't governed by any part of the Bill of Rights.  We are governed by the Constitutions of the United States and the many States.  As nice and lofty as the Bill of Rights is, it's just another piece of parchment, nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are arguing that the state constitutions are what governs us?   No.  The Bill of Rights IS the US Constitution.  No, it is not all of the US Constitution, but it is part of the US Constitution.  The Bill of Rights sets the standards.  No state constitution can override what the US Constitution states.  And the Bill of Rights is part of the US Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  nobody takes the right wing seriously about our form of Government, either.
> 
> We don't have a unitary form of federal government like State governments do.
> 
> And, we have a doctrine of separation of powers.  Only the right wing, loves to make a federal Case out of Every Thing.
Click to expand...


Nobody care who you take seriously.  Make your point with pacts, not vague attempts at insults.

The fact is, the US Constitution is the law of the land.  No state constitution can overrule it.  We have been through this before, Danny-boy.


----------



## Pop23

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the 2nd amendment was meant as the left says it was........
> 
> WHY THE HELL WOULD IT APPEAR IN THE BILL IF RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
> 
> Clue, it wouldn’t
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We aren't governed by any part of the Bill of Rights.  We are governed by the Constitutions of the United States and the many States.  As nice and lofty as the Bill of Rights is, it's just another piece of parchment, nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are arguing that the state constitutions are what governs us?   No.  The Bill of Rights IS the US Constitution.  No, it is not all of the US Constitution, but it is part of the US Constitution.  The Bill of Rights sets the standards.  No state constitution can override what the US Constitution states.  And the Bill of Rights is part of the US Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  nobody takes the right wing seriously about our form of Government, either.
> 
> We don't have a unitary form of federal government like State governments do.
> 
> And, we have a doctrine of separation of powers.  Only the right wing, loves to make a federal Case out of Every Thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody care who you take seriously.  Make your point with pacts, not vague attempts at insults.
> 
> The fact is, the US Constitution is the law of the land.  No state constitution can overrule it.  We have been through this before, Danny-boy.
Click to expand...


They take the Freedom of speech to mean they must speak. In reality It also means you can keep your mouth shut as well. 

They would be best served to think about that.


----------



## Wry Catcher

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> We aren't governed by any part of the Bill of Rights.  We are governed by the Constitutions of the United States and the many States.  As nice and lofty as the Bill of Rights is, it's just another piece of parchment, nothing more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the Bill of Rights is part of the US Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, but the Bill of Rights is not the Constitution.  It's a seperate document that has no legal standings.  The Constitution did take it's first 10 amendments from it but the constitution is more than that and is the law of the land.  The Bill of Rights is just a supporting document.  Anyone states that we must follow the bill or rights over the Constitution doesn't get my support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not a matter of the Bill of Rights OVER the US Constitution.  The Bill of Rights is PART of the US Constitutions.  Those amendments are TO the US Constitution.  To pretend they are separate documents is incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Bill of Rights, is not a Constitution unto itself; they don't have their own, legal Standing without our federal Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's clarify things, shall we?
> 
> According to Merriam Webster, the definition of "amend" is:
> "*Definition of amend*
> transitive verb
> 1 *: *to put right;  especially *: *to make emendations in (something, such as a text)
> 
> amended the manuscript
> 2 a *: *to change or modify (something) for the better *: *improve
> 
> amend the situation
> b *: *to alter especially in phraseology;  especially *: *to alter formally by modification, deletion, or addition
> 
> amend a constitution"
> 
> This means that the amendments to the US Constitution are changes to the original document.   This also means that the Constitutional Amendments are part of the US Constitution.   And unless you can find any contradictory laws in the US Constitution, they stand as the law of the land.
Click to expand...


And yet, the 2nd A. is the most imperceptive Amendment of all.  It's syntax is baffling to all those who do not hold to the two extreme positions.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

WinterBorn said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the 2nd amendment was meant as the left says it was........
> 
> WHY THE HELL WOULD IT APPEAR IN THE BILL IF RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
> 
> Clue, it wouldn’t
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We aren't governed by any part of the Bill of Rights.  We are governed by the Constitutions of the United States and the many States.  As nice and lofty as the Bill of Rights is, it's just another piece of parchment, nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are arguing that the state constitutions are what governs us?   No.  The Bill of Rights IS the US Constitution.  No, it is not all of the US Constitution, but it is part of the US Constitution.  The Bill of Rights sets the standards.  No state constitution can override what the US Constitution states.  And the Bill of Rights is part of the US Constitution.
Click to expand...


The Constitution is based on the Bill of Rights but the Bill of Rights has absolutely no legal standing.  We can quibble with symantics all day long.


----------



## westwall

danielpalos said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Using your logic, the article should read:
> 
> A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Anything beyond the period would not be necessary.
> 
> OR:
> 
> A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State the right of the MILITIA to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed
> 
> Yet, neither is true, and it’s placement in the articles that give INDIVIDUAL rights make the actual wording of:
> 
> 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
> 
> Completely understandable, that, it is the individuals the right.
> 
> PERIOD.
> 
> 
> 
> That is Your story bro.  Our Founding Fathers were more liberal than that; and included civil rights to limit Government propaganda and rhetoric, being executed into legal dogma.
> 
> Congress has no authority to deny or disparage the People from military service and keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice, except for its inclusion within the BILL OF RIGHTS, which of course would make zero sense using your logic. But it’s there, so.
> 
> Yours is the nice story Bro.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The security of a free State to its well regulated militia, is a States' sovereign right.  It says so in our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTF?
> 
> In the part of the constitution (the bill of rights) that expresses the rights of the INDIVIDUAL, they decided to lump in that A STATE HAS THE RIGHT TO FORM A MILITIA?
> 
> That makes absolutely ZERO sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You make zero sense.  The actual words in our Second Amendment clearly declare what is Necessary to the security of a free State; it is mostly definitely not, the whole and entire concept of natural and individual rights.
Click to expand...







It is you who are confused.  So that the State CAN remain free, it is essential that the natural Right of defense be acknowledged.  Firearms ownership by the PEOPLE is how that is maintained.  Not the government, the PEOPLE.


----------



## Pop23

Wry Catcher said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the Bill of Rights is part of the US Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but the Bill of Rights is not the Constitution.  It's a seperate document that has no legal standings.  The Constitution did take it's first 10 amendments from it but the constitution is more than that and is the law of the land.  The Bill of Rights is just a supporting document.  Anyone states that we must follow the bill or rights over the Constitution doesn't get my support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not a matter of the Bill of Rights OVER the US Constitution.  The Bill of Rights is PART of the US Constitutions.  Those amendments are TO the US Constitution.  To pretend they are separate documents is incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Bill of Rights, is not a Constitution unto itself; they don't have their own, legal Standing without our federal Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's clarify things, shall we?
> 
> According to Merriam Webster, the definition of "amend" is:
> "*Definition of amend*
> transitive verb
> 1 *: *to put right;  especially *: *to make emendations in (something, such as a text)
> 
> amended the manuscript
> 2 a *: *to change or modify (something) for the better *: *improve
> 
> amend the situation
> b *: *to alter especially in phraseology;  especially *: *to alter formally by modification, deletion, or addition
> 
> amend a constitution"
> 
> This means that the amendments to the US Constitution are changes to the original document.   This also means that the Constitutional Amendments are part of the US Constitution.   And unless you can find any contradictory laws in the US Constitution, they stand as the law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet, the 2nd A. is the most imperceptive Amendment of all.  It's syntax is baffling to all those who do not hold to the two extreme positions.
Click to expand...


Only when taken out of context and forgetting where it is placed within the document itself.

It is contained in the section of the Constitution that outlines what rights the INDIVIDUAL has that are SUPERIOR to those of the GOVERNMENT.

The second is pretty clear in context that:

We know that, to preserve our Freedom we must organize and maintain a Militia (Military), but we also know from our own History, that these organized Militia's can be used against their own citizens (the Revolutionary War having just been fought), so we reserve the rights to "the people" to arm themselves against such an event ever happening again.

Quite simple, and in context of it's position within the document, makes complete sense.


----------



## westwall

Daryl Hunt said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the 2nd amendment was meant as the left says it was........
> 
> WHY THE HELL WOULD IT APPEAR IN THE BILL IF RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
> 
> Clue, it wouldn’t
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We aren't governed by any part of the Bill of Rights.  We are governed by the Constitutions of the United States and the many States.  As nice and lofty as the Bill of Rights is, it's just another piece of parchment, nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are arguing that the state constitutions are what governs us?   No.  The Bill of Rights IS the US Constitution.  No, it is not all of the US Constitution, but it is part of the US Constitution.  The Bill of Rights sets the standards.  No state constitution can override what the US Constitution states.  And the Bill of Rights is part of the US Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Constitution is based on the Bill of Rights but the Bill of Rights has absolutely no legal standing.  We can quibble with symantics all day long.
Click to expand...







Dude, you are babbling.  The Bill of Rights is an essential part of the COTUS.  How you can claim that the Bill of Rights, which is the FOUNDATION of our legal system...has no legal standing is beyond me.  That is such a warped interpretation of the COTUS as to be beyond belief.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Daryl Hunt said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the 2nd amendment was meant as the left says it was........
> 
> WHY THE HELL WOULD IT APPEAR IN THE BILL IF RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
> 
> Clue, it wouldn’t
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We aren't governed by any part of the Bill of Rights.  We are governed by the Constitutions of the United States and the many States.  As nice and lofty as the Bill of Rights is, it's just another piece of parchment, nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are arguing that the state constitutions are what governs us?   No.  The Bill of Rights IS the US Constitution.  No, it is not all of the US Constitution, but it is part of the US Constitution.  The Bill of Rights sets the standards.  No state constitution can override what the US Constitution states.  And the Bill of Rights is part of the US Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Constitution is based on the Bill of Rights but the Bill of Rights has absolutely no legal standing.  We can quibble with symantics all day long.
Click to expand...


You're wrong, but I'd appreciate some clarity and would like to see examples of your reasoning.

Postscript:  In one sense you are correct, sort of:  The Bill of Rights was built on the Magna Carta and the moral imperative expressed during the age of enlightenment.


----------



## frigidweirdo

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> We aren't governed by any part of the Bill of Rights.  We are governed by the Constitutions of the United States and the many States.  As nice and lofty as the Bill of Rights is, it's just another piece of parchment, nothing more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the Bill of Rights is part of the US Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, but the Bill of Rights is not the Constitution.  It's a seperate document that has no legal standings.  The Constitution did take it's first 10 amendments from it but the constitution is more than that and is the law of the land.  The Bill of Rights is just a supporting document.  Anyone states that we must follow the bill or rights over the Constitution doesn't get my support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not a matter of the Bill of Rights OVER the US Constitution.  The Bill of Rights is PART of the US Constitutions.  Those amendments are TO the US Constitution.  To pretend they are separate documents is incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Bill of Rights, is not a Constitution unto itself; they don't have their own, legal Standing without our federal Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's clarify things, shall we?
> 
> According to Merriam Webster, the definition of "amend" is:
> "*Definition of amend*
> transitive verb
> 1 *: *to put right;  especially *: *to make emendations in (something, such as a text)
> 
> amended the manuscript
> 2 a *: *to change or modify (something) for the better *: *improve
> 
> amend the situation
> b *: *to alter especially in phraseology;  especially *: *to alter formally by modification, deletion, or addition
> 
> amend a constitution"
> 
> This means that the amendments to the US Constitution are changes to the original document.   This also means that the Constitutional Amendments are part of the US Constitution.   And unless you can find any contradictory laws in the US Constitution, they stand as the law of the land.
Click to expand...


How many people on here have a complete lack of basic knowledge about the Constitution? That they think the Bill or Rights has no power, or less power than any other part is just laughable.


----------



## Pop23

Daryl Hunt said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the 2nd amendment was meant as the left says it was........
> 
> WHY THE HELL WOULD IT APPEAR IN THE BILL IF RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
> 
> Clue, it wouldn’t
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We aren't governed by any part of the Bill of Rights.  We are governed by the Constitutions of the United States and the many States.  As nice and lofty as the Bill of Rights is, it's just another piece of parchment, nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are arguing that the state constitutions are what governs us?   No.  The Bill of Rights IS the US Constitution.  No, it is not all of the US Constitution, but it is part of the US Constitution.  The Bill of Rights sets the standards.  No state constitution can override what the US Constitution states.  And the Bill of Rights is part of the US Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Constitution is based on the Bill of Rights but the Bill of Rights has absolutely no legal standing.  We can quibble with symantics all day long.
Click to expand...


And you do like to quibble. Remember Daryl, it was you that said that the document is nothing more than words on a piece of paper. So, what exactly CAN BE DISCUSSED?


----------



## westwall

Wry Catcher said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the Bill of Rights is part of the US Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but the Bill of Rights is not the Constitution.  It's a seperate document that has no legal standings.  The Constitution did take it's first 10 amendments from it but the constitution is more than that and is the law of the land.  The Bill of Rights is just a supporting document.  Anyone states that we must follow the bill or rights over the Constitution doesn't get my support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not a matter of the Bill of Rights OVER the US Constitution.  The Bill of Rights is PART of the US Constitutions.  Those amendments are TO the US Constitution.  To pretend they are separate documents is incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Bill of Rights, is not a Constitution unto itself; they don't have their own, legal Standing without our federal Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's clarify things, shall we?
> 
> According to Merriam Webster, the definition of "amend" is:
> "*Definition of amend*
> transitive verb
> 1 *: *to put right;  especially *: *to make emendations in (something, such as a text)
> 
> amended the manuscript
> 2 a *: *to change or modify (something) for the better *: *improve
> 
> amend the situation
> b *: *to alter especially in phraseology;  especially *: *to alter formally by modification, deletion, or addition
> 
> amend a constitution"
> 
> This means that the amendments to the US Constitution are changes to the original document.   This also means that the Constitutional Amendments are part of the US Constitution.   And unless you can find any contradictory laws in the US Constitution, they stand as the law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet, the 2nd A. is the most imperceptive Amendment of all.  It's syntax is baffling to all those who do not hold to the two extreme positions.
Click to expand...







Its syntax is simple to understand except to those who wish to ignore the original language as it was used back when it was written, and those who have a political impetus to see the 2nd removed.  The Amendment is as clear as day to anyone with a 3rd grade level English background.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Daryl Hunt said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> Applying 21st Century mores to 18th Century thinking is an exercise in vanity.
> 
> The militia is bound to the right.  The right is not bound to the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to follow the meaning of the 2nd amendment, the Militia is bound to the Government which should be neither right nor left, it just is.
Click to expand...


Where does it say in the constitution that the militia is bound to the government?

The People have the right ti raise a militia without government authorization.

It is the right of the people to keep and bear arms so they may raise a militia to guarantee the security of a free state.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Daryl Hunt said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the 2nd amendment was meant as the left says it was........
> 
> WHY THE HELL WOULD IT APPEAR IN THE BILL IF RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
> 
> Clue, it wouldn’t
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We aren't governed by any part of the Bill of Rights.  We are governed by the Constitutions of the United States and the many States.  As nice and lofty as the Bill of Rights is, it's just another piece of parchment, nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are arguing that the state constitutions are what governs us?   No.  The Bill of Rights IS the US Constitution.  No, it is not all of the US Constitution, but it is part of the US Constitution.  The Bill of Rights sets the standards.  No state constitution can override what the US Constitution states.  And the Bill of Rights is part of the US Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Constitution is based on the Bill of Rights but the Bill of Rights has absolutely no legal standing.  We can quibble with symantics all day long.
Click to expand...


How on Earth is the Constitution based on the Bill of Rights?

You can quibble with "symantics" all day, but until you understand some simple basic stuff, you're always going to be talking about "symantics", whatever the fuck that is. 

People like you really should not be allowed to vote if you can't even understand simple basic facts about the US political system. 

Let me guess, you voted for Trump.


----------



## Pop23

Daryl Hunt said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the 2nd amendment was meant as the left says it was........
> 
> WHY THE HELL WOULD IT APPEAR IN THE BILL IF RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
> 
> Clue, it wouldn’t
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We aren't governed by any part of the Bill of Rights.  We are governed by the Constitutions of the United States and the many States.  As nice and lofty as the Bill of Rights is, it's just another piece of parchment, nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are arguing that the state constitutions are what governs us?   No.  The Bill of Rights IS the US Constitution.  No, it is not all of the US Constitution, but it is part of the US Constitution.  The Bill of Rights sets the standards.  No state constitution can override what the US Constitution states.  And the Bill of Rights is part of the US Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Constitution is based on the Bill of Rights but the Bill of Rights has absolutely no legal standing.  We can quibble with symantics all day long.
Click to expand...


Without the Bill of Rights, our Government would have likely failed by now.


----------



## Pop23

frigidweirdo said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the 2nd amendment was meant as the left says it was........
> 
> WHY THE HELL WOULD IT APPEAR IN THE BILL IF RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
> 
> Clue, it wouldn’t
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We aren't governed by any part of the Bill of Rights.  We are governed by the Constitutions of the United States and the many States.  As nice and lofty as the Bill of Rights is, it's just another piece of parchment, nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are arguing that the state constitutions are what governs us?   No.  The Bill of Rights IS the US Constitution.  No, it is not all of the US Constitution, but it is part of the US Constitution.  The Bill of Rights sets the standards.  No state constitution can override what the US Constitution states.  And the Bill of Rights is part of the US Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Constitution is based on the Bill of Rights but the Bill of Rights has absolutely no legal standing.  We can quibble with symantics all day long.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How on Earth is the Constitution based on the Bill of Rights?
> 
> You can quibble with "symantics" all day, but until you understand some simple basic stuff, you're always going to be talking about "symantics", whatever the fuck that is.
> 
> People like you really should not be allowed to vote if you can't even understand simple basic facts about the US political system.
> 
> Let me guess, you voted for Trump.
Click to expand...


When you get me and frigidweirdo agreeing on so much over the course of a week, you know there is hope for this Country. I know he has me on ignore, but good job FW.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

westwall said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the 2nd amendment was meant as the left says it was........
> 
> WHY THE HELL WOULD IT APPEAR IN THE BILL IF RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
> 
> Clue, it wouldn’t
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We aren't governed by any part of the Bill of Rights.  We are governed by the Constitutions of the United States and the many States.  As nice and lofty as the Bill of Rights is, it's just another piece of parchment, nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are arguing that the state constitutions are what governs us?   No.  The Bill of Rights IS the US Constitution.  No, it is not all of the US Constitution, but it is part of the US Constitution.  The Bill of Rights sets the standards.  No state constitution can override what the US Constitution states.  And the Bill of Rights is part of the US Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Constitution is based on the Bill of Rights but the Bill of Rights has absolutely no legal standing.  We can quibble with symantics all day long.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, you are babbling.  The Bill of Rights is an essential part of the COTUS.  How you can claim that the Bill of Rights, which is the FOUNDATION of our legal system...has no legal standing is beyond me.  That is such a warped interpretation of the COTUS as to be beyond belief.
Click to expand...


So  you only want to quibble and win.  Fine, you win Oh great Quibbler.


----------



## westwall

Daryl Hunt said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the 2nd amendment was meant as the left says it was........
> 
> WHY THE HELL WOULD IT APPEAR IN THE BILL IF RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
> 
> Clue, it wouldn’t
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We aren't governed by any part of the Bill of Rights.  We are governed by the Constitutions of the United States and the many States.  As nice and lofty as the Bill of Rights is, it's just another piece of parchment, nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are arguing that the state constitutions are what governs us?   No.  The Bill of Rights IS the US Constitution.  No, it is not all of the US Constitution, but it is part of the US Constitution.  The Bill of Rights sets the standards.  No state constitution can override what the US Constitution states.  And the Bill of Rights is part of the US Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Constitution is based on the Bill of Rights but the Bill of Rights has absolutely no legal standing.  We can quibble with symantics all day long.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, you are babbling.  The Bill of Rights is an essential part of the COTUS.  How you can claim that the Bill of Rights, which is the FOUNDATION of our legal system...has no legal standing is beyond me.  That is such a warped interpretation of the COTUS as to be beyond belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So  you only want to quibble and win.  Fine, you win Oh great Quibbler.
Click to expand...







Not understanding the COTUS, as you clearly don't, is not "quibbling" dude.  That is you lacking basic understanding of the COTUS, and how our legal system is supposed to work.  Instead of pouting, try educating yourself on more than howard zinn books of silliness.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

frigidweirdo said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the 2nd amendment was meant as the left says it was........
> 
> WHY THE HELL WOULD IT APPEAR IN THE BILL IF RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
> 
> Clue, it wouldn’t
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We aren't governed by any part of the Bill of Rights.  We are governed by the Constitutions of the United States and the many States.  As nice and lofty as the Bill of Rights is, it's just another piece of parchment, nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are arguing that the state constitutions are what governs us?   No.  The Bill of Rights IS the US Constitution.  No, it is not all of the US Constitution, but it is part of the US Constitution.  The Bill of Rights sets the standards.  No state constitution can override what the US Constitution states.  And the Bill of Rights is part of the US Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Constitution is based on the Bill of Rights but the Bill of Rights has absolutely no legal standing.  We can quibble with symantics all day long.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How on Earth is the Constitution based on the Bill of Rights?
> 
> You can quibble with "symantics" all day, but until you understand some simple basic stuff, you're always going to be talking about "symantics", whatever the fuck that is.
> 
> People like you really should not be allowed to vote if you can't even understand simple basic facts about the US political system.
> 
> Let me guess, you voted for Trump.
Click to expand...


Everyone except you can read. Both documents are identical for the first 10 items.  The Bill of Rights didn't call them Amendments though but that's about the only difference.  Careful now, you are about to have the wrath of the great Quibbler come down upon you .


----------



## Pop23

Daryl Hunt said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the 2nd amendment was meant as the left says it was........
> 
> WHY THE HELL WOULD IT APPEAR IN THE BILL IF RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
> 
> Clue, it wouldn’t
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We aren't governed by any part of the Bill of Rights.  We are governed by the Constitutions of the United States and the many States.  As nice and lofty as the Bill of Rights is, it's just another piece of parchment, nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are arguing that the state constitutions are what governs us?   No.  The Bill of Rights IS the US Constitution.  No, it is not all of the US Constitution, but it is part of the US Constitution.  The Bill of Rights sets the standards.  No state constitution can override what the US Constitution states.  And the Bill of Rights is part of the US Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Constitution is based on the Bill of Rights but the Bill of Rights has absolutely no legal standing.  We can quibble with symantics all day long.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How on Earth is the Constitution based on the Bill of Rights?
> 
> You can quibble with "symantics" all day, but until you understand some simple basic stuff, you're always going to be talking about "symantics", whatever the fuck that is.
> 
> People like you really should not be allowed to vote if you can't even understand simple basic facts about the US political system.
> 
> Let me guess, you voted for Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone except you can read. Both documents are identical for the first 10 items.  The Bill of Rights didn't call them Amendments though but that's about the only difference.  Careful now, you are about to have the wrath of the great Quibbler come down upon you .
Click to expand...


Well, at least you've cut your word count down, one can only read so much idiocy in one setting.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

westwall said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> We aren't governed by any part of the Bill of Rights.  We are governed by the Constitutions of the United States and the many States.  As nice and lofty as the Bill of Rights is, it's just another piece of parchment, nothing more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are arguing that the state constitutions are what governs us?   No.  The Bill of Rights IS the US Constitution.  No, it is not all of the US Constitution, but it is part of the US Constitution.  The Bill of Rights sets the standards.  No state constitution can override what the US Constitution states.  And the Bill of Rights is part of the US Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Constitution is based on the Bill of Rights but the Bill of Rights has absolutely no legal standing.  We can quibble with symantics all day long.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, you are babbling.  The Bill of Rights is an essential part of the COTUS.  How you can claim that the Bill of Rights, which is the FOUNDATION of our legal system...has no legal standing is beyond me.  That is such a warped interpretation of the COTUS as to be beyond belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So  you only want to quibble and win.  Fine, you win Oh great Quibbler.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not understanding the COTUS, as you clearly don't, is not "quibbling" dude.  That is you lacking basic understanding of the COTUS, and how our legal system is supposed to work.  Instead of pouting, try educating yourself on more than howard zinn books of silliness.
Click to expand...


You've won.  Accept your Trophy, here, take my sword, you want my wife (I certainly don't), and graciously move on.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Pop23 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> We aren't governed by any part of the Bill of Rights.  We are governed by the Constitutions of the United States and the many States.  As nice and lofty as the Bill of Rights is, it's just another piece of parchment, nothing more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are arguing that the state constitutions are what governs us?   No.  The Bill of Rights IS the US Constitution.  No, it is not all of the US Constitution, but it is part of the US Constitution.  The Bill of Rights sets the standards.  No state constitution can override what the US Constitution states.  And the Bill of Rights is part of the US Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Constitution is based on the Bill of Rights but the Bill of Rights has absolutely no legal standing.  We can quibble with symantics all day long.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How on Earth is the Constitution based on the Bill of Rights?
> 
> You can quibble with "symantics" all day, but until you understand some simple basic stuff, you're always going to be talking about "symantics", whatever the fuck that is.
> 
> People like you really should not be allowed to vote if you can't even understand simple basic facts about the US political system.
> 
> Let me guess, you voted for Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone except you can read. Both documents are identical for the first 10 items.  The Bill of Rights didn't call them Amendments though but that's about the only difference.  Careful now, you are about to have the wrath of the great Quibbler come down upon you .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, at least you've cut your word count down, one can only read so much idiocy in one setting.
Click to expand...


When I deal with Domestic Terrorists I don't have much to say to them, terrorist.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

Wry Catcher said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> Applying 21st Century mores to 18th Century thinking is an exercise in vanity.
> 
> The militia is bound to the right.  The right is not bound to the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is the opinion of Scalia, and I don't recall he was there when the 2nd A. was written.  In fact he went on and on in Heller to justify his political opinion and could only convince four others.
Click to expand...


Learn to read English, and the Constitution will be opened to you.  Otherwise you either shoot in the dark, or lie.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

Daryl Hunt said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the 2nd amendment was meant as the left says it was........
> 
> WHY THE HELL WOULD IT APPEAR IN THE BILL IF RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
> 
> Clue, it wouldn’t
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We aren't governed by any part of the Bill of Rights.  We are governed by the Constitutions of the United States and the many States.  As nice and lofty as the Bill of Rights is, it's just another piece of parchment, nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are arguing that the state constitutions are what governs us?   No.  The Bill of Rights IS the US Constitution.  No, it is not all of the US Constitution, but it is part of the US Constitution.  The Bill of Rights sets the standards.  No state constitution can override what the US Constitution states.  And the Bill of Rights is part of the US Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Constitution is based on the Bill of Rights but the Bill of Rights has absolutely no legal standing.  We can quibble with symantics all day long.
Click to expand...


Your ignorance is astonishing.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Daryl Hunt said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the 2nd amendment was meant as the left says it was........
> 
> WHY THE HELL WOULD IT APPEAR IN THE BILL IF RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
> 
> Clue, it wouldn’t
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We aren't governed by any part of the Bill of Rights.  We are governed by the Constitutions of the United States and the many States.  As nice and lofty as the Bill of Rights is, it's just another piece of parchment, nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are arguing that the state constitutions are what governs us?   No.  The Bill of Rights IS the US Constitution.  No, it is not all of the US Constitution, but it is part of the US Constitution.  The Bill of Rights sets the standards.  No state constitution can override what the US Constitution states.  And the Bill of Rights is part of the US Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Constitution is based on the Bill of Rights but the Bill of Rights has absolutely no legal standing.  We can quibble with symantics all day long.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How on Earth is the Constitution based on the Bill of Rights?
> 
> You can quibble with "symantics" all day, but until you understand some simple basic stuff, you're always going to be talking about "symantics", whatever the fuck that is.
> 
> People like you really should not be allowed to vote if you can't even understand simple basic facts about the US political system.
> 
> Let me guess, you voted for Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone except you can read. Both documents are identical for the first 10 items.  The Bill of Rights didn't call them Amendments though but that's about the only difference.  Careful now, you are about to have the wrath of the great Quibbler come down upon you .
Click to expand...


Two documents? I don't see two documents. I see one document, it's called the US Constitution.

Article V says, *"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, "*

Article VI says *"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."*

Seems pretty clear to me. 

The Constitution says that all amendments to the Constitution are a part of the Constitution like any other part. The Constitution, which those amendments are a part of, are the supreme law of the land.

So, the Constitution says the Bill of Rights is the supreme law of the land like every other part. 

It's that simple.


----------



## Wry Catcher

westwall said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is Your story bro.  Our Founding Fathers were more liberal than that; and included civil rights to limit Government propaganda and rhetoric, being executed into legal dogma.
> 
> Congress has no authority to deny or disparage the People from military service and keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> 
> 
> Nice, except for its inclusion within the BILL OF RIGHTS, which of course would make zero sense using your logic. But it’s there, so.
> 
> Yours is the nice story Bro.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The security of a free State to its well regulated militia, is a States' sovereign right.  It says so in our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTF?
> 
> In the part of the constitution (the bill of rights) that expresses the rights of the INDIVIDUAL, they decided to lump in that A STATE HAS THE RIGHT TO FORM A MILITIA?
> 
> That makes absolutely ZERO sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You make zero sense.  The actual words in our Second Amendment clearly declare what is Necessary to the security of a free State; it is mostly definitely not, the whole and entire concept of natural and individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is you who are confused.  So that the State CAN remain free, it is essential that the natural Right of defense be acknowledged.  Firearms ownership by the PEOPLE is how that is maintained.  Not the government, the PEOPLE.
Click to expand...


Do you follow current events?  Imagine small arms held by the Syrian People, against the 20th Century war planes dropping ordinance and chemical weapons.  Whose winning those engagements?

Then consider the effect if citizens could own the arms capable of engaging a 21st century military force in the US?   In my opinion, having served on a Destroyer in the late 60's, how that vessel would have done against the 21st Century Navy - not well and not for long.

Your reasoning is absurd.  Today the cost and size of our military, and the training, cannot be defeated or even slowed by a civilian force, and even if the arms of war were legal in the US.  Have you thought about how these arms might be used in small engagements against the civilian population (think criminal gangs).


----------



## westwall

Daryl Hunt said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are arguing that the state constitutions are what governs us?   No.  The Bill of Rights IS the US Constitution.  No, it is not all of the US Constitution, but it is part of the US Constitution.  The Bill of Rights sets the standards.  No state constitution can override what the US Constitution states.  And the Bill of Rights is part of the US Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution is based on the Bill of Rights but the Bill of Rights has absolutely no legal standing.  We can quibble with symantics all day long.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, you are babbling.  The Bill of Rights is an essential part of the COTUS.  How you can claim that the Bill of Rights, which is the FOUNDATION of our legal system...has no legal standing is beyond me.  That is such a warped interpretation of the COTUS as to be beyond belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So  you only want to quibble and win.  Fine, you win Oh great Quibbler.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not understanding the COTUS, as you clearly don't, is not "quibbling" dude.  That is you lacking basic understanding of the COTUS, and how our legal system is supposed to work.  Instead of pouting, try educating yourself on more than howard zinn books of silliness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've won.  Accept your Trophy, here, take my sword, you want my wife (I certainly don't), and graciously move on.
Click to expand...






Dude, I don't care about "winning".  I care that people, that would count you among them, understand the laws of this land and why they were written the way they were.  That is all I care about.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Billy_Kinetta said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the 2nd amendment was meant as the left says it was........
> 
> WHY THE HELL WOULD IT APPEAR IN THE BILL IF RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
> 
> Clue, it wouldn’t
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We aren't governed by any part of the Bill of Rights.  We are governed by the Constitutions of the United States and the many States.  As nice and lofty as the Bill of Rights is, it's just another piece of parchment, nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are arguing that the state constitutions are what governs us?   No.  The Bill of Rights IS the US Constitution.  No, it is not all of the US Constitution, but it is part of the US Constitution.  The Bill of Rights sets the standards.  No state constitution can override what the US Constitution states.  And the Bill of Rights is part of the US Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Constitution is based on the Bill of Rights but the Bill of Rights has absolutely no legal standing.  We can quibble with symantics all day long.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your ignorance is astonishing.
Click to expand...


Wow, you sure showed me, didn't you.  That was such a brilliant retort.


----------



## westwall

Wry Catcher said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice, except for its inclusion within the BILL OF RIGHTS, which of course would make zero sense using your logic. But it’s there, so.
> 
> Yours is the nice story Bro.
> 
> 
> 
> The security of a free State to its well regulated militia, is a States' sovereign right.  It says so in our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTF?
> 
> In the part of the constitution (the bill of rights) that expresses the rights of the INDIVIDUAL, they decided to lump in that A STATE HAS THE RIGHT TO FORM A MILITIA?
> 
> That makes absolutely ZERO sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You make zero sense.  The actual words in our Second Amendment clearly declare what is Necessary to the security of a free State; it is mostly definitely not, the whole and entire concept of natural and individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is you who are confused.  So that the State CAN remain free, it is essential that the natural Right of defense be acknowledged.  Firearms ownership by the PEOPLE is how that is maintained.  Not the government, the PEOPLE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you follow current events?  Imagine small arms held by the Syrian People, against the 20th Century war planes dropping ordinance and chemical weapons.  Whose winning those engagements?
> 
> Then consider the effect if citizens could own the arms capable of engaging a 21st century military force in the US?   In my opinion, having served on a Destroyer in the late 60's, how that vessel would have done against the 21st Century Navy - not well and not for long.
> 
> Your reasoning is absurd.  Today the cost and size of our military, and the training, cannot be defeated or even slowed by a civilian force, and even if the arms of war were legal in the US.  Have you thought about how these arms might be used in small engagements against the civilian population (think criminal gangs).
Click to expand...





Imagine the country of Romania, ruled by a evil dictator, brought down by patriots who began their revolution with single shot target pistols.  Now, imagine how much lower the death toll among the patriots would have been if they had better weapons to begin with.  You seem to forget that the military has to sleep sometime.  You seem to forget that we have been fighting in Afghanistan for over a decade and the little bastards armed with rifles are STILL FIGHTING.

It seems it is you who are not following current events.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

Wry Catcher said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice, except for its inclusion within the BILL OF RIGHTS, which of course would make zero sense using your logic. But it’s there, so.
> 
> Yours is the nice story Bro.
> 
> 
> 
> The security of a free State to its well regulated militia, is a States' sovereign right.  It says so in our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTF?
> 
> In the part of the constitution (the bill of rights) that expresses the rights of the INDIVIDUAL, they decided to lump in that A STATE HAS THE RIGHT TO FORM A MILITIA?
> 
> That makes absolutely ZERO sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You make zero sense.  The actual words in our Second Amendment clearly declare what is Necessary to the security of a free State; it is mostly definitely not, the whole and entire concept of natural and individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is you who are confused.  So that the State CAN remain free, it is essential that the natural Right of defense be acknowledged.  Firearms ownership by the PEOPLE is how that is maintained.  Not the government, the PEOPLE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you follow current events?  Imagine small arms held by the Syrian People, against the 20th Century war planes dropping ordinance and chemical weapons.  Whose winning those engagements?
> 
> Then consider the effect if citizens could own the arms capable of engaging a 21st century military force in the US?   In my opinion, having served on a Destroyer in the late 60's, how that vessel would have done against the 21st Century Navy - not well and not for long.
> 
> Your reasoning is absurd.  Today the cost and size of our military, and the training, cannot be defeated or even slowed by a civilian force, and even if the arms of war were legal in the US.  Have you thought about how these arms might be used in small engagements against the civilian population (think criminal gangs).
Click to expand...


You people keep assuming the US Military would be on YOUR side.

Amusing.


----------



## Pop23

Daryl Hunt said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are arguing that the state constitutions are what governs us?   No.  The Bill of Rights IS the US Constitution.  No, it is not all of the US Constitution, but it is part of the US Constitution.  The Bill of Rights sets the standards.  No state constitution can override what the US Constitution states.  And the Bill of Rights is part of the US Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution is based on the Bill of Rights but the Bill of Rights has absolutely no legal standing.  We can quibble with symantics all day long.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How on Earth is the Constitution based on the Bill of Rights?
> 
> You can quibble with "symantics" all day, but until you understand some simple basic stuff, you're always going to be talking about "symantics", whatever the fuck that is.
> 
> People like you really should not be allowed to vote if you can't even understand simple basic facts about the US political system.
> 
> Let me guess, you voted for Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone except you can read. Both documents are identical for the first 10 items.  The Bill of Rights didn't call them Amendments though but that's about the only difference.  Careful now, you are about to have the wrath of the great Quibbler come down upon you .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, at least you've cut your word count down, one can only read so much idiocy in one setting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When I deal with Domestic Terrorists I don't have much to say to them, terrorist.
Click to expand...


I guess you could go with that, but here's a bit of advice.

If I were you (and thank the good lord I'm not), I'd just keep talking to them, You'd bore them to death and save on the cost of bullets. Or, on the other hand, they might just laugh themselves dead. Either way, YOU SAVE THE MONEY!

You can thank me later


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

Daryl Hunt said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the 2nd amendment was meant as the left says it was........
> 
> WHY THE HELL WOULD IT APPEAR IN THE BILL IF RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
> 
> Clue, it wouldn’t
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We aren't governed by any part of the Bill of Rights.  We are governed by the Constitutions of the United States and the many States.  As nice and lofty as the Bill of Rights is, it's just another piece of parchment, nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are arguing that the state constitutions are what governs us?   No.  The Bill of Rights IS the US Constitution.  No, it is not all of the US Constitution, but it is part of the US Constitution.  The Bill of Rights sets the standards.  No state constitution can override what the US Constitution states.  And the Bill of Rights is part of the US Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Constitution is based on the Bill of Rights but the Bill of Rights has absolutely no legal standing.  We can quibble with symantics all day long.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your ignorance is astonishing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, you sure showed me, didn't you.  That was such a brilliant retort.
Click to expand...


Ya think?  I see you are easily entertained, as well.

The response is merely factual.


----------



## toobfreak

Daryl Hunt said:


> If the same rules applied then and now,



BUT THEY DON'T.  End of argument.  Reading the OP, I don't see how any of it is even relevant to the title of the thread!


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Wry Catcher said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice, except for its inclusion within the BILL OF RIGHTS, which of course would make zero sense using your logic. But it’s there, so.
> 
> Yours is the nice story Bro.
> 
> 
> 
> The security of a free State to its well regulated militia, is a States' sovereign right.  It says so in our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTF?
> 
> In the part of the constitution (the bill of rights) that expresses the rights of the INDIVIDUAL, they decided to lump in that A STATE HAS THE RIGHT TO FORM A MILITIA?
> 
> That makes absolutely ZERO sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You make zero sense.  The actual words in our Second Amendment clearly declare what is Necessary to the security of a free State; it is mostly definitely not, the whole and entire concept of natural and individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is you who are confused.  So that the State CAN remain free, it is essential that the natural Right of defense be acknowledged.  Firearms ownership by the PEOPLE is how that is maintained.  Not the government, the PEOPLE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you follow current events?  Imagine small arms held by the Syrian People, against the 20th Century war planes dropping ordinance and chemical weapons.  Whose winning those engagements?
> 
> Then consider the effect if citizens could own the arms capable of engaging a 21st century military force in the US?   In my opinion, having served on a Destroyer in the late 60's, how that vessel would have done against the 21st Century Navy - not well and not for long.
> 
> Your reasoning is absurd.  Today the cost and size of our military, and the training, cannot be defeated or even slowed by a civilian force, and even if the arms of war were legal in the US.  Have you thought about how these arms might be used in small engagements against the civilian population (think criminal gangs).
Click to expand...


The thought that a private citizen (Other than a well prepared Multi Billionaire with his own private military) can even last but a few minutes against the force of the US Military is absurd.   Luckily, there is a military tradition and law written into the Military UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) that is like the Military's version of the Constitution of the US, that bars this type of military action.  Not even a President can wildly expect the Military to follow that order and remain in power for very long.  

The first half of the 2nd amendment has really been out of meaning since the National Guard Act of 1917.  I imagine that some Multi Billionaire could buy a small country and start building a force that might last a few days, months or more but no on the continental US.  Due to the various weapons laws (we can't even call them firearms anymore) they would be stopped long before they gain the weapons to have a ghost of  a chance.  Same goes for a state accumulating those weapons even though they can legally do so.  

The Second amendment really didn't stay current much past 1850.  AFter that, Firearms started accelerate to the point where only Governments could afford them.  Much like the KIng and his Armory in the 12th century.

I have never demanded that we need to get rid of the 2nd amendment.  What I do suggest is we need to amend it to keep it current.  Make it more specific to today and less ambiguous.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Daryl Hunt said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The security of a free State to its well regulated militia, is a States' sovereign right.  It says so in our Second Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WTF?
> 
> In the part of the constitution (the bill of rights) that expresses the rights of the INDIVIDUAL, they decided to lump in that A STATE HAS THE RIGHT TO FORM A MILITIA?
> 
> That makes absolutely ZERO sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You make zero sense.  The actual words in our Second Amendment clearly declare what is Necessary to the security of a free State; it is mostly definitely not, the whole and entire concept of natural and individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is you who are confused.  So that the State CAN remain free, it is essential that the natural Right of defense be acknowledged.  Firearms ownership by the PEOPLE is how that is maintained.  Not the government, the PEOPLE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you follow current events?  Imagine small arms held by the Syrian People, against the 20th Century war planes dropping ordinance and chemical weapons.  Whose winning those engagements?
> 
> Then consider the effect if citizens could own the arms capable of engaging a 21st century military force in the US?   In my opinion, having served on a Destroyer in the late 60's, how that vessel would have done against the 21st Century Navy - not well and not for long.
> 
> Your reasoning is absurd.  Today the cost and size of our military, and the training, cannot be defeated or even slowed by a civilian force, and even if the arms of war were legal in the US.  Have you thought about how these arms might be used in small engagements against the civilian population (think criminal gangs).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The thought that a private citizen (Other than a well prepared Multi Billionaire with his own private military) can even last but a few minutes against the force of the US Military is absurd.   Luckily, there is a military tradition and law written into the Military UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) that is like the Military's version of the Constitution of the US, that bars this type of military action.  Not even a President can wildly expect the Military to follow that order and remain in power for very long.
> 
> The first half of the 2nd amendment has really been out of meaning since the National Guard Act of 1917.  I imagine that some Multi Billionaire could buy a small country and start building a force that might last a few days, months or more but no on the continental US.  Due to the various weapons laws (we can't even call them firearms anymore) they would be stopped long before they gain the weapons to have a ghost of  a chance.  Same goes for a state accumulating those weapons even though they can legally do so.
> 
> The Second amendment really didn't stay current much past 1850.  AFter that, Firearms started accelerate to the point where only Governments could afford them.  Much like the KIng and his Armory in the 12th century.
> 
> I have never demanded that we need to get rid of the 2nd amendment.  What I do suggest is we need to amend it to keep it current.  Make it more specific to today and less ambiguous.
Click to expand...

One citizen no

How abut a few million citizens?


----------



## Wry Catcher

westwall said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The security of a free State to its well regulated militia, is a States' sovereign right.  It says so in our Second Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WTF?
> 
> In the part of the constitution (the bill of rights) that expresses the rights of the INDIVIDUAL, they decided to lump in that A STATE HAS THE RIGHT TO FORM A MILITIA?
> 
> That makes absolutely ZERO sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You make zero sense.  The actual words in our Second Amendment clearly declare what is Necessary to the security of a free State; it is mostly definitely not, the whole and entire concept of natural and individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is you who are confused.  So that the State CAN remain free, it is essential that the natural Right of defense be acknowledged.  Firearms ownership by the PEOPLE is how that is maintained.  Not the government, the PEOPLE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you follow current events?  Imagine small arms held by the Syrian People, against the 20th Century war planes dropping ordinance and chemical weapons.  Whose winning those engagements?
> 
> Then consider the effect if citizens could own the arms capable of engaging a 21st century military force in the US?   In my opinion, having served on a Destroyer in the late 60's, how that vessel would have done against the 21st Century Navy - not well and not for long.
> 
> Your reasoning is absurd.  Today the cost and size of our military, and the training, cannot be defeated or even slowed by a civilian force, and even if the arms of war were legal in the US.  Have you thought about how these arms might be used in small engagements against the civilian population (think criminal gangs).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Imagine the country of Romania, ruled by a evil dictator, brought down by patriots who began their revolution with single shot target pistols.  Now, imagine how much lower the death toll among the patriots would have been if they had better weapons to begin with.  You seem to forget that the military has to sleep sometime.  You seem to forget that we have been fighting in Afghanistan for over a decade and the little bastards armed with rifles are STILL FIGHTING.
> 
> It seems it is you who are not following current events.
Click to expand...


You can believe whatever the hell you want to, the fact is I disagree, and I know that masses of people do not work well together unless there is strong leadership, which has the moral authority to weed out bad apples and those who do not follow orders, cannot function against a force well trained and disciplined.

Nicolae Ceaușescu has neither, the moral authority nor in the end a well trained military to defend him.

Do not expect a Nicolae Ceaușescu to repress a nation of 300+ million; Trump is the most divisive POTUS of all,  and even he cannot engage in the atrocities which the Romanian People endured.

Our forces in Afghanistan are not fully engaged, there is nothing to even match the forces used in WW II on the March across the Pacific to Japan, let alone one year earlier when the beaches at Normandy were stormed.


----------



## Pop23

Daryl Hunt said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The security of a free State to its well regulated militia, is a States' sovereign right.  It says so in our Second Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WTF?
> 
> In the part of the constitution (the bill of rights) that expresses the rights of the INDIVIDUAL, they decided to lump in that A STATE HAS THE RIGHT TO FORM A MILITIA?
> 
> That makes absolutely ZERO sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You make zero sense.  The actual words in our Second Amendment clearly declare what is Necessary to the security of a free State; it is mostly definitely not, the whole and entire concept of natural and individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is you who are confused.  So that the State CAN remain free, it is essential that the natural Right of defense be acknowledged.  Firearms ownership by the PEOPLE is how that is maintained.  Not the government, the PEOPLE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you follow current events?  Imagine small arms held by the Syrian People, against the 20th Century war planes dropping ordinance and chemical weapons.  Whose winning those engagements?
> 
> Then consider the effect if citizens could own the arms capable of engaging a 21st century military force in the US?   In my opinion, having served on a Destroyer in the late 60's, how that vessel would have done against the 21st Century Navy - not well and not for long.
> 
> Your reasoning is absurd.  Today the cost and size of our military, and the training, cannot be defeated or even slowed by a civilian force, and even if the arms of war were legal in the US.  Have you thought about how these arms might be used in small engagements against the civilian population (think criminal gangs).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The thought that a private citizen (Other than a well prepared Multi Billionaire with his own private military) can even last but a few minutes against the force of the US Military is absurd.   Luckily, there is a military tradition and law written into the Military UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) that is like the Military's version of the Constitution of the US, that bars this type of military action.  Not even a President can wildly expect the Military to follow that order and remain in power for very long.
> 
> The first half of the 2nd amendment has really been out of meaning since the National Guard Act of 1917.  I imagine that some Multi Billionaire could buy a small country and start building a force that might last a few days, months or more but no on the continental US.  Due to the various weapons laws (we can't even call them firearms anymore) they would be stopped long before they gain the weapons to have a ghost of  a chance.  Same goes for a state accumulating those weapons even though they can legally do so.
> 
> The Second amendment really didn't stay current much past 1850.  AFter that, Firearms started accelerate to the point where only Governments could afford them.  Much like the KIng and his Armory in the 12th century.
> 
> I have never demanded that we need to get rid of the 2nd amendment.  What I do suggest is we need to amend it to keep it current.  Make it more specific to today and less ambiguous.
Click to expand...




> The thought that a private citizen (Other than a well prepared Multi Billionaire with his own private military) can even last but a few minutes against the force of the US Military is absurd. Luckily, there is a military tradition and law written into the Military UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) that is like the Military's version of the Constitution of the US, that bars this type of military action. Not even a President can wildly expect the Military to follow that order and remain in power for very long.



Yeah, the British had the most advanced fighting machine on the face of the earth, and expressed the same sentiments as you, how'd that work out for em?


----------



## danielpalos

Pop23 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> We aren't governed by any part of the Bill of Rights.  We are governed by the Constitutions of the United States and the many States.  As nice and lofty as the Bill of Rights is, it's just another piece of parchment, nothing more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the Bill of Rights is part of the US Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, but the Bill of Rights is not the Constitution.  It's a seperate document that has no legal standings.  The Constitution did take it's first 10 amendments from it but the constitution is more than that and is the law of the land.  The Bill of Rights is just a supporting document.  Anyone states that we must follow the bill or rights over the Constitution doesn't get my support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not a matter of the Bill of Rights OVER the US Constitution.  The Bill of Rights is PART of the US Constitutions.  Those amendments are TO the US Constitution.  To pretend they are separate documents is incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Bill of Rights, is not a Constitution unto itself; they don't have their own, legal Standing without our federal Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a part of the constitution and clearly a very important part as it is relegated the starting position of all the amendments. The first 10 are delegated to the superior rights that the PEOPLE have to it's government. But for some unknown reason you think that, for some unknown purpose the Founding Fathers snuck in an amendment, near the top of this list, that served a far different purpose than securing the Peoples rights.
> 
> Un friggin real the pretzel twisting you've gone through.
Click to expand...

They are, merely Articles of Amendment, that is all.


----------



## danielpalos

Pop23 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The security of a free State to its well regulated militia, is a States' sovereign right.  It says so in our Second Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WTF?
> 
> In the part of the constitution (the bill of rights) that expresses the rights of the INDIVIDUAL, they decided to lump in that A STATE HAS THE RIGHT TO FORM A MILITIA?
> 
> That makes absolutely ZERO sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You make zero sense.  The actual words in our Second Amendment clearly declare what is Necessary to the security of a free State; it is mostly definitely not, the whole and entire concept of natural and individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it’s clearly stated, then it is by the people’s right to keep and bear stems.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which, Persons of the People shall not be Infringed when it is really really important, if we have to quibble, right wingers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you care to make an argument, do so in such a way that is understandable. That's simply gibberish.
Click to expand...

If you don't understand that, you are simply clueless and Causeless and lack any Standing, in Any legal venue.


----------



## Pop23

danielpalos said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the Bill of Rights is part of the US Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but the Bill of Rights is not the Constitution.  It's a seperate document that has no legal standings.  The Constitution did take it's first 10 amendments from it but the constitution is more than that and is the law of the land.  The Bill of Rights is just a supporting document.  Anyone states that we must follow the bill or rights over the Constitution doesn't get my support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not a matter of the Bill of Rights OVER the US Constitution.  The Bill of Rights is PART of the US Constitutions.  Those amendments are TO the US Constitution.  To pretend they are separate documents is incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Bill of Rights, is not a Constitution unto itself; they don't have their own, legal Standing without our federal Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a part of the constitution and clearly a very important part as it is relegated the starting position of all the amendments. The first 10 are delegated to the superior rights that the PEOPLE have to it's government. But for some unknown reason you think that, for some unknown purpose the Founding Fathers snuck in an amendment, near the top of this list, that served a far different purpose than securing the Peoples rights.
> 
> Un friggin real the pretzel twisting you've gone through.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are, merely Articles of Amendment, that is all.
Click to expand...


OK, no freedom of speech for you, cuz afterall, their just Articles of Amendments.


----------



## Pop23

danielpalos said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> WTF?
> 
> In the part of the constitution (the bill of rights) that expresses the rights of the INDIVIDUAL, they decided to lump in that A STATE HAS THE RIGHT TO FORM A MILITIA?
> 
> That makes absolutely ZERO sense.
> 
> 
> 
> You make zero sense.  The actual words in our Second Amendment clearly declare what is Necessary to the security of a free State; it is mostly definitely not, the whole and entire concept of natural and individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it’s clearly stated, then it is by the people’s right to keep and bear stems.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which, Persons of the People shall not be Infringed when it is really really important, if we have to quibble, right wingers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you care to make an argument, do so in such a way that is understandable. That's simply gibberish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you don't understand that, you are simply clueless and Causeless and lack any Standing, in Any legal venue.
Click to expand...


OMG, the dude is completely triggered.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Skull Pilot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> WTF?
> 
> In the part of the constitution (the bill of rights) that expresses the rights of the INDIVIDUAL, they decided to lump in that A STATE HAS THE RIGHT TO FORM A MILITIA?
> 
> That makes absolutely ZERO sense.
> 
> 
> 
> You make zero sense.  The actual words in our Second Amendment clearly declare what is Necessary to the security of a free State; it is mostly definitely not, the whole and entire concept of natural and individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is you who are confused.  So that the State CAN remain free, it is essential that the natural Right of defense be acknowledged.  Firearms ownership by the PEOPLE is how that is maintained.  Not the government, the PEOPLE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you follow current events?  Imagine small arms held by the Syrian People, against the 20th Century war planes dropping ordinance and chemical weapons.  Whose winning those engagements?
> 
> Then consider the effect if citizens could own the arms capable of engaging a 21st century military force in the US?   In my opinion, having served on a Destroyer in the late 60's, how that vessel would have done against the 21st Century Navy - not well and not for long.
> 
> Your reasoning is absurd.  Today the cost and size of our military, and the training, cannot be defeated or even slowed by a civilian force, and even if the arms of war were legal in the US.  Have you thought about how these arms might be used in small engagements against the civilian population (think criminal gangs).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The thought that a private citizen (Other than a well prepared Multi Billionaire with his own private military) can even last but a few minutes against the force of the US Military is absurd.   Luckily, there is a military tradition and law written into the Military UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) that is like the Military's version of the Constitution of the US, that bars this type of military action.  Not even a President can wildly expect the Military to follow that order and remain in power for very long.
> 
> The first half of the 2nd amendment has really been out of meaning since the National Guard Act of 1917.  I imagine that some Multi Billionaire could buy a small country and start building a force that might last a few days, months or more but no on the continental US.  Due to the various weapons laws (we can't even call them firearms anymore) they would be stopped long before they gain the weapons to have a ghost of  a chance.  Same goes for a state accumulating those weapons even though they can legally do so.
> 
> The Second amendment really didn't stay current much past 1850.  AFter that, Firearms started accelerate to the point where only Governments could afford them.  Much like the KIng and his Armory in the 12th century.
> 
> I have never demanded that we need to get rid of the 2nd amendment.  What I do suggest is we need to amend it to keep it current.  Make it more specific to today and less ambiguous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One citizen no
> 
> How abut a few million citizens?
Click to expand...


How about that ^^^:

Ever wonder how a few million would be fed, provided shelter, training, arms and enforced discipline? How would command and control work, are a million men under arms able to work well together without trained non commissioned officers for every dozen or so?  An LT or above to oversee a company?

A mob is not a military force.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Wry Catcher said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You make zero sense.  The actual words in our Second Amendment clearly declare what is Necessary to the security of a free State; it is mostly definitely not, the whole and entire concept of natural and individual rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is you who are confused.  So that the State CAN remain free, it is essential that the natural Right of defense be acknowledged.  Firearms ownership by the PEOPLE is how that is maintained.  Not the government, the PEOPLE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you follow current events?  Imagine small arms held by the Syrian People, against the 20th Century war planes dropping ordinance and chemical weapons.  Whose winning those engagements?
> 
> Then consider the effect if citizens could own the arms capable of engaging a 21st century military force in the US?   In my opinion, having served on a Destroyer in the late 60's, how that vessel would have done against the 21st Century Navy - not well and not for long.
> 
> Your reasoning is absurd.  Today the cost and size of our military, and the training, cannot be defeated or even slowed by a civilian force, and even if the arms of war were legal in the US.  Have you thought about how these arms might be used in small engagements against the civilian population (think criminal gangs).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The thought that a private citizen (Other than a well prepared Multi Billionaire with his own private military) can even last but a few minutes against the force of the US Military is absurd.   Luckily, there is a military tradition and law written into the Military UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) that is like the Military's version of the Constitution of the US, that bars this type of military action.  Not even a President can wildly expect the Military to follow that order and remain in power for very long.
> 
> The first half of the 2nd amendment has really been out of meaning since the National Guard Act of 1917.  I imagine that some Multi Billionaire could buy a small country and start building a force that might last a few days, months or more but no on the continental US.  Due to the various weapons laws (we can't even call them firearms anymore) they would be stopped long before they gain the weapons to have a ghost of  a chance.  Same goes for a state accumulating those weapons even though they can legally do so.
> 
> The Second amendment really didn't stay current much past 1850.  AFter that, Firearms started accelerate to the point where only Governments could afford them.  Much like the KIng and his Armory in the 12th century.
> 
> I have never demanded that we need to get rid of the 2nd amendment.  What I do suggest is we need to amend it to keep it current.  Make it more specific to today and less ambiguous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One citizen no
> 
> How abut a few million citizens?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about that ^^^:
> 
> Ever wonder how a few million would be fed, provided shelter, training, arms and enforced discipline? How would command and control work, are a million men under arms work well together without trained non commissioned officers for ever dozen or so?
Click to expand...


Spread them out over the entire country and compartmentalize

Idiot


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> We aren't governed by any part of the Bill of Rights.  We are governed by the Constitutions of the United States and the many States.  As nice and lofty as the Bill of Rights is, it's just another piece of parchment, nothing more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the Bill of Rights is part of the US Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, but the Bill of Rights is not the Constitution.  It's a seperate document that has no legal standings.  The Constitution did take it's first 10 amendments from it but the constitution is more than that and is the law of the land.  The Bill of Rights is just a supporting document.  Anyone states that we must follow the bill or rights over the Constitution doesn't get my support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not a matter of the Bill of Rights OVER the US Constitution.  The Bill of Rights is PART of the US Constitutions.  Those amendments are TO the US Constitution.  To pretend they are separate documents is incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Bill of Rights, is not a Constitution unto itself; they don't have their own, legal Standing without our federal Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's clarify things, shall we?
> 
> According to Merriam Webster, the definition of "amend" is:
> "*Definition of amend*
> transitive verb
> 1 *: *to put right;  especially *: *to make emendations in (something, such as a text)
> 
> amended the manuscript
> 2 a *: *to change or modify (something) for the better *: *improve
> 
> amend the situation
> b *: *to alter especially in phraseology;  especially *: *to alter formally by modification, deletion, or addition
> 
> amend a constitution"
> 
> This means that the amendments to the US Constitution are changes to the original document.   This also means that the Constitutional Amendments are part of the US Constitution.   And unless you can find any contradictory laws in the US Constitution, they stand as the law of the land.
Click to expand...

Then, why does the right wing imply, our Second Article of Amendment is a Constitution unto itself; instead of merely the the second Article which happens to amend a point about the security needs of a free State.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Skull Pilot said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is you who are confused.  So that the State CAN remain free, it is essential that the natural Right of defense be acknowledged.  Firearms ownership by the PEOPLE is how that is maintained.  Not the government, the PEOPLE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you follow current events?  Imagine small arms held by the Syrian People, against the 20th Century war planes dropping ordinance and chemical weapons.  Whose winning those engagements?
> 
> Then consider the effect if citizens could own the arms capable of engaging a 21st century military force in the US?   In my opinion, having served on a Destroyer in the late 60's, how that vessel would have done against the 21st Century Navy - not well and not for long.
> 
> Your reasoning is absurd.  Today the cost and size of our military, and the training, cannot be defeated or even slowed by a civilian force, and even if the arms of war were legal in the US.  Have you thought about how these arms might be used in small engagements against the civilian population (think criminal gangs).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The thought that a private citizen (Other than a well prepared Multi Billionaire with his own private military) can even last but a few minutes against the force of the US Military is absurd.   Luckily, there is a military tradition and law written into the Military UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) that is like the Military's version of the Constitution of the US, that bars this type of military action.  Not even a President can wildly expect the Military to follow that order and remain in power for very long.
> 
> The first half of the 2nd amendment has really been out of meaning since the National Guard Act of 1917.  I imagine that some Multi Billionaire could buy a small country and start building a force that might last a few days, months or more but no on the continental US.  Due to the various weapons laws (we can't even call them firearms anymore) they would be stopped long before they gain the weapons to have a ghost of  a chance.  Same goes for a state accumulating those weapons even though they can legally do so.
> 
> The Second amendment really didn't stay current much past 1850.  AFter that, Firearms started accelerate to the point where only Governments could afford them.  Much like the KIng and his Armory in the 12th century.
> 
> I have never demanded that we need to get rid of the 2nd amendment.  What I do suggest is we need to amend it to keep it current.  Make it more specific to today and less ambiguous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One citizen no
> 
> How abut a few million citizens?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about that ^^^:
> 
> Ever wonder how a few million would be fed, provided shelter, training, arms and enforced discipline? How would command and control work, are a million men under arms work well together without trained non commissioned officers for ever dozen or so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Spread them out over the entire country and compartmentalize.  They can do it in Afghanistan.
> 
> Idiot
Click to expand...


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the 2nd amendment was meant as the left says it was........
> 
> WHY THE HELL WOULD IT APPEAR IN THE BILL IF RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
> 
> Clue, it wouldn’t
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We aren't governed by any part of the Bill of Rights.  We are governed by the Constitutions of the United States and the many States.  As nice and lofty as the Bill of Rights is, it's just another piece of parchment, nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are arguing that the state constitutions are what governs us?   No.  The Bill of Rights IS the US Constitution.  No, it is not all of the US Constitution, but it is part of the US Constitution.  The Bill of Rights sets the standards.  No state constitution can override what the US Constitution states.  And the Bill of Rights is part of the US Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  nobody takes the right wing seriously about our form of Government, either.
> 
> We don't have a unitary form of federal government like State governments do.
> 
> And, we have a doctrine of separation of powers.  Only the right wing, loves to make a federal Case out of Every Thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody care who you take seriously.  Make your point with pacts, not vague attempts at insults.
> 
> The fact is, the US Constitution is the law of the land.  No state constitution can overrule it.  We have been through this before, Danny-boy.
Click to expand...

the fact is, stories are all you have.  any more red herrings?


----------



## danielpalos

westwall said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is Your story bro.  Our Founding Fathers were more liberal than that; and included civil rights to limit Government propaganda and rhetoric, being executed into legal dogma.
> 
> Congress has no authority to deny or disparage the People from military service and keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> 
> 
> Nice, except for its inclusion within the BILL OF RIGHTS, which of course would make zero sense using your logic. But it’s there, so.
> 
> Yours is the nice story Bro.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The security of a free State to its well regulated militia, is a States' sovereign right.  It says so in our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTF?
> 
> In the part of the constitution (the bill of rights) that expresses the rights of the INDIVIDUAL, they decided to lump in that A STATE HAS THE RIGHT TO FORM A MILITIA?
> 
> That makes absolutely ZERO sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You make zero sense.  The actual words in our Second Amendment clearly declare what is Necessary to the security of a free State; it is mostly definitely not, the whole and entire concept of natural and individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is you who are confused.  So that the State CAN remain free, it is essential that the natural Right of defense be acknowledged.  Firearms ownership by the PEOPLE is how that is maintained.  Not the government, the PEOPLE.
Click to expand...

no, You are confused.  Our Second Amendment clearly declares, what is Necessary to the security of a free State.  

All the right wing has, is appeals to ignorance of the term, militia.


----------



## Pop23

Wry Catcher said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You make zero sense.  The actual words in our Second Amendment clearly declare what is Necessary to the security of a free State; it is mostly definitely not, the whole and entire concept of natural and individual rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is you who are confused.  So that the State CAN remain free, it is essential that the natural Right of defense be acknowledged.  Firearms ownership by the PEOPLE is how that is maintained.  Not the government, the PEOPLE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you follow current events?  Imagine small arms held by the Syrian People, against the 20th Century war planes dropping ordinance and chemical weapons.  Whose winning those engagements?
> 
> Then consider the effect if citizens could own the arms capable of engaging a 21st century military force in the US?   In my opinion, having served on a Destroyer in the late 60's, how that vessel would have done against the 21st Century Navy - not well and not for long.
> 
> Your reasoning is absurd.  Today the cost and size of our military, and the training, cannot be defeated or even slowed by a civilian force, and even if the arms of war were legal in the US.  Have you thought about how these arms might be used in small engagements against the civilian population (think criminal gangs).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The thought that a private citizen (Other than a well prepared Multi Billionaire with his own private military) can even last but a few minutes against the force of the US Military is absurd.   Luckily, there is a military tradition and law written into the Military UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) that is like the Military's version of the Constitution of the US, that bars this type of military action.  Not even a President can wildly expect the Military to follow that order and remain in power for very long.
> 
> The first half of the 2nd amendment has really been out of meaning since the National Guard Act of 1917.  I imagine that some Multi Billionaire could buy a small country and start building a force that might last a few days, months or more but no on the continental US.  Due to the various weapons laws (we can't even call them firearms anymore) they would be stopped long before they gain the weapons to have a ghost of  a chance.  Same goes for a state accumulating those weapons even though they can legally do so.
> 
> The Second amendment really didn't stay current much past 1850.  AFter that, Firearms started accelerate to the point where only Governments could afford them.  Much like the KIng and his Armory in the 12th century.
> 
> I have never demanded that we need to get rid of the 2nd amendment.  What I do suggest is we need to amend it to keep it current.  Make it more specific to today and less ambiguous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One citizen no
> 
> How abut a few million citizens?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about that ^^^:
> 
> Ever wonder how a few million would be fed, provided shelter, training, arms and enforced discipline? How would command and control work, are a million men under arms able to work well together without trained non commissioned officers for every dozen or so?  An LT or above to oversee a company?
> 
> A mob is not a military force.
Click to expand...


No. it's a mob, ask those commanders in Vietnam how effective fighting a mob was.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Pop23 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> WTF?
> 
> In the part of the constitution (the bill of rights) that expresses the rights of the INDIVIDUAL, they decided to lump in that A STATE HAS THE RIGHT TO FORM A MILITIA?
> 
> That makes absolutely ZERO sense.
> 
> 
> 
> You make zero sense.  The actual words in our Second Amendment clearly declare what is Necessary to the security of a free State; it is mostly definitely not, the whole and entire concept of natural and individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is you who are confused.  So that the State CAN remain free, it is essential that the natural Right of defense be acknowledged.  Firearms ownership by the PEOPLE is how that is maintained.  Not the government, the PEOPLE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you follow current events?  Imagine small arms held by the Syrian People, against the 20th Century war planes dropping ordinance and chemical weapons.  Whose winning those engagements?
> 
> Then consider the effect if citizens could own the arms capable of engaging a 21st century military force in the US?   In my opinion, having served on a Destroyer in the late 60's, how that vessel would have done against the 21st Century Navy - not well and not for long.
> 
> Your reasoning is absurd.  Today the cost and size of our military, and the training, cannot be defeated or even slowed by a civilian force, and even if the arms of war were legal in the US.  Have you thought about how these arms might be used in small engagements against the civilian population (think criminal gangs).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The thought that a private citizen (Other than a well prepared Multi Billionaire with his own private military) can even last but a few minutes against the force of the US Military is absurd.   Luckily, there is a military tradition and law written into the Military UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) that is like the Military's version of the Constitution of the US, that bars this type of military action.  Not even a President can wildly expect the Military to follow that order and remain in power for very long.
> 
> The first half of the 2nd amendment has really been out of meaning since the National Guard Act of 1917.  I imagine that some Multi Billionaire could buy a small country and start building a force that might last a few days, months or more but no on the continental US.  Due to the various weapons laws (we can't even call them firearms anymore) they would be stopped long before they gain the weapons to have a ghost of  a chance.  Same goes for a state accumulating those weapons even though they can legally do so.
> 
> The Second amendment really didn't stay current much past 1850.  AFter that, Firearms started accelerate to the point where only Governments could afford them.  Much like the KIng and his Armory in the 12th century.
> 
> I have never demanded that we need to get rid of the 2nd amendment.  What I do suggest is we need to amend it to keep it current.  Make it more specific to today and less ambiguous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The thought that a private citizen (Other than a well prepared Multi Billionaire with his own private military) can even last but a few minutes against the force of the US Military is absurd. Luckily, there is a military tradition and law written into the Military UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) that is like the Military's version of the Constitution of the US, that bars this type of military action. Not even a President can wildly expect the Military to follow that order and remain in power for very long.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, the British had the most advanced fighting machine on the face of the earth, and expressed the same sentiments as you, how'd that work out for em?
Click to expand...


Well, traitor, the British uses their forces in country.  We don't.  When any country's leader loses the backing of it's Military (the military doesn't have to do anything, just sit down and do nothing) they are effectively out of power right at that very moment.  If our President were to try and use the Federal Troops to guard the border, the Military would be forced to do nothing.  At that point, the President had just as well resign as he's days away from an impeachment anyway.  But he can use State Forces to guard the border or assist in NON Police Action with the permission from the State Governors.  Even if the Federal Government is paying for it, it's under the authority of the States and does not go against the Posse Comitatus Act.  He can even use Federal equipment but no Federal Troops.   The System works and works well, traitor.

And we ain't Britain.  You want to go help Britain fail, by all means, go.


----------



## danielpalos

Pop23 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but the Bill of Rights is not the Constitution.  It's a seperate document that has no legal standings.  The Constitution did take it's first 10 amendments from it but the constitution is more than that and is the law of the land.  The Bill of Rights is just a supporting document.  Anyone states that we must follow the bill or rights over the Constitution doesn't get my support.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a matter of the Bill of Rights OVER the US Constitution.  The Bill of Rights is PART of the US Constitutions.  Those amendments are TO the US Constitution.  To pretend they are separate documents is incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Bill of Rights, is not a Constitution unto itself; they don't have their own, legal Standing without our federal Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a part of the constitution and clearly a very important part as it is relegated the starting position of all the amendments. The first 10 are delegated to the superior rights that the PEOPLE have to it's government. But for some unknown reason you think that, for some unknown purpose the Founding Fathers snuck in an amendment, near the top of this list, that served a far different purpose than securing the Peoples rights.
> 
> Un friggin real the pretzel twisting you've gone through.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are, merely Articles of Amendment, that is all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, no freedom of speech for you, cuz afterall, their just Articles of Amendments.
Click to expand...

Where is the express Power to Prohibit (political) speech, in our original Constitution?


----------



## Pop23

danielpalos said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice, except for its inclusion within the BILL OF RIGHTS, which of course would make zero sense using your logic. But it’s there, so.
> 
> Yours is the nice story Bro.
> 
> 
> 
> The security of a free State to its well regulated militia, is a States' sovereign right.  It says so in our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTF?
> 
> In the part of the constitution (the bill of rights) that expresses the rights of the INDIVIDUAL, they decided to lump in that A STATE HAS THE RIGHT TO FORM A MILITIA?
> 
> That makes absolutely ZERO sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You make zero sense.  The actual words in our Second Amendment clearly declare what is Necessary to the security of a free State; it is mostly definitely not, the whole and entire concept of natural and individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is you who are confused.  So that the State CAN remain free, it is essential that the natural Right of defense be acknowledged.  Firearms ownership by the PEOPLE is how that is maintained.  Not the government, the PEOPLE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, You are confused.  Our Second Amendment clearly declares, what is Necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> All the right wing has, is appeals to ignorance of the term, militia.
Click to expand...


..........and that because it is necessary to have a Militia (Military) to defend a free State, and with recent History (the revolution) showing how that Militia (Military) can be used against it's own people, that the People would have the right to defend itself against a rogue Government that would use the might of the Militia (Military) against them.

See how beautifully thought out that was.


----------



## Pop23

danielpalos said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a matter of the Bill of Rights OVER the US Constitution.  The Bill of Rights is PART of the US Constitutions.  Those amendments are TO the US Constitution.  To pretend they are separate documents is incorrect.
> 
> 
> 
> Our Bill of Rights, is not a Constitution unto itself; they don't have their own, legal Standing without our federal Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a part of the constitution and clearly a very important part as it is relegated the starting position of all the amendments. The first 10 are delegated to the superior rights that the PEOPLE have to it's government. But for some unknown reason you think that, for some unknown purpose the Founding Fathers snuck in an amendment, near the top of this list, that served a far different purpose than securing the Peoples rights.
> 
> Un friggin real the pretzel twisting you've gone through.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are, merely Articles of Amendment, that is all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, no freedom of speech for you, cuz afterall, their just Articles of Amendments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where is the express Power to Prohibit (political) speech, in our original Constitution?
Click to expand...


I guess the same place where the express power to prohibit the keeping and bearing of arms is?


----------



## danielpalos

Pop23 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You make zero sense.  The actual words in our Second Amendment clearly declare what is Necessary to the security of a free State; it is mostly definitely not, the whole and entire concept of natural and individual rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it’s clearly stated, then it is by the people’s right to keep and bear stems.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which, Persons of the People shall not be Infringed when it is really really important, if we have to quibble, right wingers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you care to make an argument, do so in such a way that is understandable. That's simply gibberish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you don't understand that, you are simply clueless and Causeless and lack any Standing, in Any legal venue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG, the dude is completely triggered.
Click to expand...

nothing but appeals to Ignorance, right wingers?

Which, _Persons_ of the _People shall not be Infringed_ when it is really really important, if we have to quibble, right wingers.


----------



## Pop23

Daryl Hunt said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You make zero sense.  The actual words in our Second Amendment clearly declare what is Necessary to the security of a free State; it is mostly definitely not, the whole and entire concept of natural and individual rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is you who are confused.  So that the State CAN remain free, it is essential that the natural Right of defense be acknowledged.  Firearms ownership by the PEOPLE is how that is maintained.  Not the government, the PEOPLE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you follow current events?  Imagine small arms held by the Syrian People, against the 20th Century war planes dropping ordinance and chemical weapons.  Whose winning those engagements?
> 
> Then consider the effect if citizens could own the arms capable of engaging a 21st century military force in the US?   In my opinion, having served on a Destroyer in the late 60's, how that vessel would have done against the 21st Century Navy - not well and not for long.
> 
> Your reasoning is absurd.  Today the cost and size of our military, and the training, cannot be defeated or even slowed by a civilian force, and even if the arms of war were legal in the US.  Have you thought about how these arms might be used in small engagements against the civilian population (think criminal gangs).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The thought that a private citizen (Other than a well prepared Multi Billionaire with his own private military) can even last but a few minutes against the force of the US Military is absurd.   Luckily, there is a military tradition and law written into the Military UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) that is like the Military's version of the Constitution of the US, that bars this type of military action.  Not even a President can wildly expect the Military to follow that order and remain in power for very long.
> 
> The first half of the 2nd amendment has really been out of meaning since the National Guard Act of 1917.  I imagine that some Multi Billionaire could buy a small country and start building a force that might last a few days, months or more but no on the continental US.  Due to the various weapons laws (we can't even call them firearms anymore) they would be stopped long before they gain the weapons to have a ghost of  a chance.  Same goes for a state accumulating those weapons even though they can legally do so.
> 
> The Second amendment really didn't stay current much past 1850.  AFter that, Firearms started accelerate to the point where only Governments could afford them.  Much like the KIng and his Armory in the 12th century.
> 
> I have never demanded that we need to get rid of the 2nd amendment.  What I do suggest is we need to amend it to keep it current.  Make it more specific to today and less ambiguous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The thought that a private citizen (Other than a well prepared Multi Billionaire with his own private military) can even last but a few minutes against the force of the US Military is absurd. Luckily, there is a military tradition and law written into the Military UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) that is like the Military's version of the Constitution of the US, that bars this type of military action. Not even a President can wildly expect the Military to follow that order and remain in power for very long.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, the British had the most advanced fighting machine on the face of the earth, and expressed the same sentiments as you, how'd that work out for em?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, traitor, the British uses their forces in country.  We don't.  When any country's leader loses the backing of it's Military (the military doesn't have to do anything, just sit down and do nothing) they are effectively out of power right at that very moment.  If our President were to try and use the Federal Troops to guard the border, the Military would be forced to do nothing.  At that point, the President had just as well resign as he's days away from an impeachment anyway.  But he can use State Forces to guard the border or assist in NON Police Action with the permission from the State Governors.  Even if the Federal Government is paying for it, it's under the authority of the States and does not go against the Posse Comitatus Act.  He can even use Federal equipment but no Federal Troops.   The System works and works well, traitor.
> 
> And we ain't Britain.  You want to go help Britain fail, by all means, go.
Click to expand...


Hey Dumbass, this was British Country.

Actually, if there is a traitor here, that would appear to be you and your actions to declare "the people" subjegated to the Government. A REAL AMERICAN understands it is the Government that is subject to the Constitution and the People.


----------



## Pop23

danielpalos said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it’s clearly stated, then it is by the people’s right to keep and bear stems.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> Which, Persons of the People shall not be Infringed when it is really really important, if we have to quibble, right wingers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you care to make an argument, do so in such a way that is understandable. That's simply gibberish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you don't understand that, you are simply clueless and Causeless and lack any Standing, in Any legal venue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG, the dude is completely triggered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nothing but appeals to Ignorance, right wingers?
> 
> Which, _Persons_ of the _People shall not be Infringed_ when it is really really important, if we have to quibble, right wingers.
Click to expand...


Make a point instead of thinking anyone want's to take your mindless test.

Good God, PLEASE AT SOME POINT MAKE A POINT! I for one would love that!


----------



## danielpalos

Pop23 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The security of a free State to its well regulated militia, is a States' sovereign right.  It says so in our Second Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WTF?
> 
> In the part of the constitution (the bill of rights) that expresses the rights of the INDIVIDUAL, they decided to lump in that A STATE HAS THE RIGHT TO FORM A MILITIA?
> 
> That makes absolutely ZERO sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You make zero sense.  The actual words in our Second Amendment clearly declare what is Necessary to the security of a free State; it is mostly definitely not, the whole and entire concept of natural and individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is you who are confused.  So that the State CAN remain free, it is essential that the natural Right of defense be acknowledged.  Firearms ownership by the PEOPLE is how that is maintained.  Not the government, the PEOPLE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, You are confused.  Our Second Amendment clearly declares, what is Necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> All the right wing has, is appeals to ignorance of the term, militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ..........and that because it is necessary to have a Militia (Military) to defend a free State, and with recent History (the revolution) showing how that Militia (Military) can be used against it's own people, that the People would have the right to defend itself against a rogue Government that would use the might of the Militia (Military) against them.
> 
> See how beautifully thought out that was.
Click to expand...

lol.  all you have is, right wing propaganda; and an appeal to ignorance of the Term, militia.


----------



## danielpalos

Pop23 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Bill of Rights, is not a Constitution unto itself; they don't have their own, legal Standing without our federal Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a part of the constitution and clearly a very important part as it is relegated the starting position of all the amendments. The first 10 are delegated to the superior rights that the PEOPLE have to it's government. But for some unknown reason you think that, for some unknown purpose the Founding Fathers snuck in an amendment, near the top of this list, that served a far different purpose than securing the Peoples rights.
> 
> Un friggin real the pretzel twisting you've gone through.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are, merely Articles of Amendment, that is all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, no freedom of speech for you, cuz afterall, their just Articles of Amendments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where is the express Power to Prohibit (political) speech, in our original Constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess the same place where the express power to prohibit the keeping and bearing of arms is?
Click to expand...

only the unorganized militia whines about gun control; well regulated militia have, literal recourse to our Second Amendment, when it really matters.


----------



## danielpalos

Pop23 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which, Persons of the People shall not be Infringed when it is really really important, if we have to quibble, right wingers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you care to make an argument, do so in such a way that is understandable. That's simply gibberish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you don't understand that, you are simply clueless and Causeless and lack any Standing, in Any legal venue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG, the dude is completely triggered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nothing but appeals to Ignorance, right wingers?
> 
> Which, _Persons_ of the _People shall not be Infringed_ when it is really really important, if we have to quibble, right wingers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Make a point instead of thinking anyone want's to take your mindless test.
> 
> Good God, PLEASE AT SOME POINT MAKE A POINT! I for one would love that!
Click to expand...

Yes, the right wing really really is, That _clueless_ and that _Causeless_, in the Public Domain.


----------



## Pop23

danielpalos said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a part of the constitution and clearly a very important part as it is relegated the starting position of all the amendments. The first 10 are delegated to the superior rights that the PEOPLE have to it's government. But for some unknown reason you think that, for some unknown purpose the Founding Fathers snuck in an amendment, near the top of this list, that served a far different purpose than securing the Peoples rights.
> 
> Un friggin real the pretzel twisting you've gone through.
> 
> 
> 
> They are, merely Articles of Amendment, that is all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, no freedom of speech for you, cuz afterall, their just Articles of Amendments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where is the express Power to Prohibit (political) speech, in our original Constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess the same place where the express power to prohibit the keeping and bearing of arms is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only the unorganized militia whines about gun control; well regulated militia have, literal recourse to our Second Amendment, when it really matters.
Click to expand...


And you've yet to explain it's placement, within the constitution in which individual freedoms are assigned, not freedoms granted to the government.

Nothing to see here folks, but wait a minute, the dude will deflect once again, it's what he does best.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Skull Pilot said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is you who are confused.  So that the State CAN remain free, it is essential that the natural Right of defense be acknowledged.  Firearms ownership by the PEOPLE is how that is maintained.  Not the government, the PEOPLE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you follow current events?  Imagine small arms held by the Syrian People, against the 20th Century war planes dropping ordinance and chemical weapons.  Whose winning those engagements?
> 
> Then consider the effect if citizens could own the arms capable of engaging a 21st century military force in the US?   In my opinion, having served on a Destroyer in the late 60's, how that vessel would have done against the 21st Century Navy - not well and not for long.
> 
> Your reasoning is absurd.  Today the cost and size of our military, and the training, cannot be defeated or even slowed by a civilian force, and even if the arms of war were legal in the US.  Have you thought about how these arms might be used in small engagements against the civilian population (think criminal gangs).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The thought that a private citizen (Other than a well prepared Multi Billionaire with his own private military) can even last but a few minutes against the force of the US Military is absurd.   Luckily, there is a military tradition and law written into the Military UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) that is like the Military's version of the Constitution of the US, that bars this type of military action.  Not even a President can wildly expect the Military to follow that order and remain in power for very long.
> 
> The first half of the 2nd amendment has really been out of meaning since the National Guard Act of 1917.  I imagine that some Multi Billionaire could buy a small country and start building a force that might last a few days, months or more but no on the continental US.  Due to the various weapons laws (we can't even call them firearms anymore) they would be stopped long before they gain the weapons to have a ghost of  a chance.  Same goes for a state accumulating those weapons even though they can legally do so.
> 
> The Second amendment really didn't stay current much past 1850.  AFter that, Firearms started accelerate to the point where only Governments could afford them.  Much like the KIng and his Armory in the 12th century.
> 
> I have never demanded that we need to get rid of the 2nd amendment.  What I do suggest is we need to amend it to keep it current.  Make it more specific to today and less ambiguous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One citizen no
> 
> How abut a few million citizens?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about that ^^^:
> 
> Ever wonder how a few million would be fed, provided shelter, training, arms and enforced discipline? How would command and control work, are a million men under arms work well together without trained non commissioned officers for ever dozen or so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Spread them out over the entire country and compartmentalize
> 
> Idiot
Click to expand...


Finally you sign a post with your nickname.  But I digress.  

Who is the supreme commander, does he or she have the moral authority to be followed by millions?  

Without the Command and Control structure how would food and arms be distributed to each compartment?  Armies require more than fighting men, the fighting men require food clothing and shelter.  Arms of course and at least first aid for the wounded need to be in effect before the first round is fired.

Of course a guerrilla war would pester a well-regulated military force; yet if Marshall Law was ordered, and Habeas Corpus were suspended, and each spy or vandal hung and left to be seen by his comrades  your fictional force will run home waving the white flag of surrender.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Pop23 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is you who are confused.  So that the State CAN remain free, it is essential that the natural Right of defense be acknowledged.  Firearms ownership by the PEOPLE is how that is maintained.  Not the government, the PEOPLE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you follow current events?  Imagine small arms held by the Syrian People, against the 20th Century war planes dropping ordinance and chemical weapons.  Whose winning those engagements?
> 
> Then consider the effect if citizens could own the arms capable of engaging a 21st century military force in the US?   In my opinion, having served on a Destroyer in the late 60's, how that vessel would have done against the 21st Century Navy - not well and not for long.
> 
> Your reasoning is absurd.  Today the cost and size of our military, and the training, cannot be defeated or even slowed by a civilian force, and even if the arms of war were legal in the US.  Have you thought about how these arms might be used in small engagements against the civilian population (think criminal gangs).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The thought that a private citizen (Other than a well prepared Multi Billionaire with his own private military) can even last but a few minutes against the force of the US Military is absurd.   Luckily, there is a military tradition and law written into the Military UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) that is like the Military's version of the Constitution of the US, that bars this type of military action.  Not even a President can wildly expect the Military to follow that order and remain in power for very long.
> 
> The first half of the 2nd amendment has really been out of meaning since the National Guard Act of 1917.  I imagine that some Multi Billionaire could buy a small country and start building a force that might last a few days, months or more but no on the continental US.  Due to the various weapons laws (we can't even call them firearms anymore) they would be stopped long before they gain the weapons to have a ghost of  a chance.  Same goes for a state accumulating those weapons even though they can legally do so.
> 
> The Second amendment really didn't stay current much past 1850.  AFter that, Firearms started accelerate to the point where only Governments could afford them.  Much like the KIng and his Armory in the 12th century.
> 
> I have never demanded that we need to get rid of the 2nd amendment.  What I do suggest is we need to amend it to keep it current.  Make it more specific to today and less ambiguous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One citizen no
> 
> How abut a few million citizens?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about that ^^^:
> 
> Ever wonder how a few million would be fed, provided shelter, training, arms and enforced discipline? How would command and control work, are a million men under arms able to work well together without trained non commissioned officers for every dozen or so?  An LT or above to oversee a company?
> 
> A mob is not a military force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. it's a mob, ask those commanders in Vietnam how effective fighting a mob was.
Click to expand...


Your Pipe Dream Revolution isn't well thought out.  Logistics is a major problem.  Just putting it together would get it noticed long before it became effective and ready to be used.  So you are going to get your millions to the fight.  Good friggin luck with that.  The Traffic Jam, the gas lines, and more will kill you in the first place.  Are you gong to practice mobilizing your millions before hand?  Woops, you just got noticed again.  

The NVA and VC were NOT mobs.  Most of the VC were trained NVA (North Vietnam Regulars) that came down and trained South Vietnamese fighters.  They were well equipped, had a good supply line, excellent equipment that was portable and were extremely dedicated in their mission to win at any cost.  We knew we could win easily against a VC unit because they didn't have the support but when going against an NVA unit, Katy bar the Door, those were extremely good fighting men that were well equipped.  The second you forgot that you ended up dead.  But neither of these were MOBS.  They were dedicated fighting men with the will to win even if they had to die to do it.  At some point, we just got tired of killing them with no end in sight.


----------



## danielpalos

Pop23 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are, merely Articles of Amendment, that is all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, no freedom of speech for you, cuz afterall, their just Articles of Amendments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where is the express Power to Prohibit (political) speech, in our original Constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess the same place where the express power to prohibit the keeping and bearing of arms is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only the unorganized militia whines about gun control; well regulated militia have, literal recourse to our Second Amendment, when it really matters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you've yet to explain it's placement, within the constitution in which individual freedoms are assigned, not freedoms granted to the government.
> 
> Nothing to see here folks, but wait a minute, the dude will deflect once again, it's what he does best.
Click to expand...

some conspiracy?  the words mean more than any right wing propaganda.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Pop23 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is you who are confused.  So that the State CAN remain free, it is essential that the natural Right of defense be acknowledged.  Firearms ownership by the PEOPLE is how that is maintained.  Not the government, the PEOPLE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you follow current events?  Imagine small arms held by the Syrian People, against the 20th Century war planes dropping ordinance and chemical weapons.  Whose winning those engagements?
> 
> Then consider the effect if citizens could own the arms capable of engaging a 21st century military force in the US?   In my opinion, having served on a Destroyer in the late 60's, how that vessel would have done against the 21st Century Navy - not well and not for long.
> 
> Your reasoning is absurd.  Today the cost and size of our military, and the training, cannot be defeated or even slowed by a civilian force, and even if the arms of war were legal in the US.  Have you thought about how these arms might be used in small engagements against the civilian population (think criminal gangs).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The thought that a private citizen (Other than a well prepared Multi Billionaire with his own private military) can even last but a few minutes against the force of the US Military is absurd.   Luckily, there is a military tradition and law written into the Military UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) that is like the Military's version of the Constitution of the US, that bars this type of military action.  Not even a President can wildly expect the Military to follow that order and remain in power for very long.
> 
> The first half of the 2nd amendment has really been out of meaning since the National Guard Act of 1917.  I imagine that some Multi Billionaire could buy a small country and start building a force that might last a few days, months or more but no on the continental US.  Due to the various weapons laws (we can't even call them firearms anymore) they would be stopped long before they gain the weapons to have a ghost of  a chance.  Same goes for a state accumulating those weapons even though they can legally do so.
> 
> The Second amendment really didn't stay current much past 1850.  AFter that, Firearms started accelerate to the point where only Governments could afford them.  Much like the KIng and his Armory in the 12th century.
> 
> I have never demanded that we need to get rid of the 2nd amendment.  What I do suggest is we need to amend it to keep it current.  Make it more specific to today and less ambiguous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The thought that a private citizen (Other than a well prepared Multi Billionaire with his own private military) can even last but a few minutes against the force of the US Military is absurd. Luckily, there is a military tradition and law written into the Military UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) that is like the Military's version of the Constitution of the US, that bars this type of military action. Not even a President can wildly expect the Military to follow that order and remain in power for very long.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, the British had the most advanced fighting machine on the face of the earth, and expressed the same sentiments as you, how'd that work out for em?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, traitor, the British uses their forces in country.  We don't.  When any country's leader loses the backing of it's Military (the military doesn't have to do anything, just sit down and do nothing) they are effectively out of power right at that very moment.  If our President were to try and use the Federal Troops to guard the border, the Military would be forced to do nothing.  At that point, the President had just as well resign as he's days away from an impeachment anyway.  But he can use State Forces to guard the border or assist in NON Police Action with the permission from the State Governors.  Even if the Federal Government is paying for it, it's under the authority of the States and does not go against the Posse Comitatus Act.  He can even use Federal equipment but no Federal Troops.   The System works and works well, traitor.
> 
> And we ain't Britain.  You want to go help Britain fail, by all means, go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey Dumbass, this was British Country.
> 
> Actually, if there is a traitor here, that would appear to be you and your actions to declare "the people" subjegated to the Government. A REAL AMERICAN understands it is the Government that is subject to the Constitution and the People.
Click to expand...


Ah, but I want to keep the Constitution and the US intact.  You are investing in an organization that wants to dismantle both using a back door in the Constitution.  Your Extreme Right Wing group is supported by none other than the Koch Brothers so it's well funded.  If successful, then there would be another Civil War and the Federal Government would have no choice but to use Federal Troops and supporting State Troops to quell the rioting.  Sorry, but you still won't have your "Revolution" since you won't be classed much higher than a riot.

So, I can live with my place in life.


----------



## Pop23

Daryl Hunt said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you follow current events?  Imagine small arms held by the Syrian People, against the 20th Century war planes dropping ordinance and chemical weapons.  Whose winning those engagements?
> 
> Then consider the effect if citizens could own the arms capable of engaging a 21st century military force in the US?   In my opinion, having served on a Destroyer in the late 60's, how that vessel would have done against the 21st Century Navy - not well and not for long.
> 
> Your reasoning is absurd.  Today the cost and size of our military, and the training, cannot be defeated or even slowed by a civilian force, and even if the arms of war were legal in the US.  Have you thought about how these arms might be used in small engagements against the civilian population (think criminal gangs).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The thought that a private citizen (Other than a well prepared Multi Billionaire with his own private military) can even last but a few minutes against the force of the US Military is absurd.   Luckily, there is a military tradition and law written into the Military UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) that is like the Military's version of the Constitution of the US, that bars this type of military action.  Not even a President can wildly expect the Military to follow that order and remain in power for very long.
> 
> The first half of the 2nd amendment has really been out of meaning since the National Guard Act of 1917.  I imagine that some Multi Billionaire could buy a small country and start building a force that might last a few days, months or more but no on the continental US.  Due to the various weapons laws (we can't even call them firearms anymore) they would be stopped long before they gain the weapons to have a ghost of  a chance.  Same goes for a state accumulating those weapons even though they can legally do so.
> 
> The Second amendment really didn't stay current much past 1850.  AFter that, Firearms started accelerate to the point where only Governments could afford them.  Much like the KIng and his Armory in the 12th century.
> 
> I have never demanded that we need to get rid of the 2nd amendment.  What I do suggest is we need to amend it to keep it current.  Make it more specific to today and less ambiguous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One citizen no
> 
> How abut a few million citizens?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about that ^^^:
> 
> Ever wonder how a few million would be fed, provided shelter, training, arms and enforced discipline? How would command and control work, are a million men under arms able to work well together without trained non commissioned officers for every dozen or so?  An LT or above to oversee a company?
> 
> A mob is not a military force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. it's a mob, ask those commanders in Vietnam how effective fighting a mob was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your Pipe Dream Revolution isn't well thought out.  Logistics is a major problem.  Just putting it together would get it noticed long before it became effective and ready to be used.  So you are going to get your millions to the fight.  Good friggin luck with that.  The Traffic Jam, the gas lines, and more will kill you in the first place.  Are you gong to practice mobilizing your millions before hand?  Woops, you just got noticed again.
> 
> The NVA and VC were NOT mobs.  Most of the VC were trained NVA (North Vietnam Regulars) that came down and trained South Vietnamese fighters.  They were well equipped, had a good supply line, excellent equipment that was portable and were extremely dedicated in their mission to win at any cost.  We knew we could win easily against a VC unit because they didn't have the support but when going against an NVA unit, Katy bar the Door, those were extremely good fighting men that were well equipped.  The second you forgot that you ended up dead.  But neither of these were MOBS.  They were dedicated fighting men with the will to win even if they had to die to do it.  At some point, we just got tired of killing them with no end in sight.
Click to expand...


We just need to hold off long enough for a good part of the Military to say "what the fuck, we are attacking our own people"

And an equally fun part is that, thanks to the recent wars, a WHOLE HELLUVA lot of ex Military is now part of this so called unorganized militia. Cool beans aye.

Now, no one is calling for a revolution, except it appears your kinda jonesing for one. But if it happened by this Billionaire that you seem to be getting an erection over, you think for a moment (as was the case in the Revolutionary War), other world powers would just stand back and watch? Nah, I think the Militia would get some mighty fine backing fro the outside world.

And that, my friend, is just how respected our Constitution is to the Free World. They hate Tyrants like you.


----------



## westwall

Daryl Hunt said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you follow current events?  Imagine small arms held by the Syrian People, against the 20th Century war planes dropping ordinance and chemical weapons.  Whose winning those engagements?
> 
> Then consider the effect if citizens could own the arms capable of engaging a 21st century military force in the US?   In my opinion, having served on a Destroyer in the late 60's, how that vessel would have done against the 21st Century Navy - not well and not for long.
> 
> Your reasoning is absurd.  Today the cost and size of our military, and the training, cannot be defeated or even slowed by a civilian force, and even if the arms of war were legal in the US.  Have you thought about how these arms might be used in small engagements against the civilian population (think criminal gangs).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The thought that a private citizen (Other than a well prepared Multi Billionaire with his own private military) can even last but a few minutes against the force of the US Military is absurd.   Luckily, there is a military tradition and law written into the Military UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) that is like the Military's version of the Constitution of the US, that bars this type of military action.  Not even a President can wildly expect the Military to follow that order and remain in power for very long.
> 
> The first half of the 2nd amendment has really been out of meaning since the National Guard Act of 1917.  I imagine that some Multi Billionaire could buy a small country and start building a force that might last a few days, months or more but no on the continental US.  Due to the various weapons laws (we can't even call them firearms anymore) they would be stopped long before they gain the weapons to have a ghost of  a chance.  Same goes for a state accumulating those weapons even though they can legally do so.
> 
> The Second amendment really didn't stay current much past 1850.  AFter that, Firearms started accelerate to the point where only Governments could afford them.  Much like the KIng and his Armory in the 12th century.
> 
> I have never demanded that we need to get rid of the 2nd amendment.  What I do suggest is we need to amend it to keep it current.  Make it more specific to today and less ambiguous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The thought that a private citizen (Other than a well prepared Multi Billionaire with his own private military) can even last but a few minutes against the force of the US Military is absurd. Luckily, there is a military tradition and law written into the Military UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) that is like the Military's version of the Constitution of the US, that bars this type of military action. Not even a President can wildly expect the Military to follow that order and remain in power for very long.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, the British had the most advanced fighting machine on the face of the earth, and expressed the same sentiments as you, how'd that work out for em?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, traitor, the British uses their forces in country.  We don't.  When any country's leader loses the backing of it's Military (the military doesn't have to do anything, just sit down and do nothing) they are effectively out of power right at that very moment.  If our President were to try and use the Federal Troops to guard the border, the Military would be forced to do nothing.  At that point, the President had just as well resign as he's days away from an impeachment anyway.  But he can use State Forces to guard the border or assist in NON Police Action with the permission from the State Governors.  Even if the Federal Government is paying for it, it's under the authority of the States and does not go against the Posse Comitatus Act.  He can even use Federal equipment but no Federal Troops.   The System works and works well, traitor.
> 
> And we ain't Britain.  You want to go help Britain fail, by all means, go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey Dumbass, this was British Country.
> 
> Actually, if there is a traitor here, that would appear to be you and your actions to declare "the people" subjegated to the Government. A REAL AMERICAN understands it is the Government that is subject to the Constitution and the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, but I want to keep the Constitution and the US intact.  You are investing in an organization that wants to dismantle both using a back door in the Constitution.  Your Extreme Right Wing group is supported by none other than the Koch Brothers so it's well funded.  If successful, then there would be another Civil War and the Federal Government would have no choice but to use Federal Troops and supporting State Troops to quell the rioting.  Sorry, but you still won't have your "Revolution" since you won't be classed much higher than a riot.
> 
> So, I can live with my place in life.
Click to expand...





And your side is funded by Soros.  The kochs provide a commodity that the world uses, yet your hero made his billions by destroying public employee pension funds throughout Asia and busting the Bank of England.  He is far more anti America than the kochs are.  Me thinks you need to do some more research.


----------



## Pop23

Daryl Hunt said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you follow current events?  Imagine small arms held by the Syrian People, against the 20th Century war planes dropping ordinance and chemical weapons.  Whose winning those engagements?
> 
> Then consider the effect if citizens could own the arms capable of engaging a 21st century military force in the US?   In my opinion, having served on a Destroyer in the late 60's, how that vessel would have done against the 21st Century Navy - not well and not for long.
> 
> Your reasoning is absurd.  Today the cost and size of our military, and the training, cannot be defeated or even slowed by a civilian force, and even if the arms of war were legal in the US.  Have you thought about how these arms might be used in small engagements against the civilian population (think criminal gangs).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The thought that a private citizen (Other than a well prepared Multi Billionaire with his own private military) can even last but a few minutes against the force of the US Military is absurd.   Luckily, there is a military tradition and law written into the Military UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) that is like the Military's version of the Constitution of the US, that bars this type of military action.  Not even a President can wildly expect the Military to follow that order and remain in power for very long.
> 
> The first half of the 2nd amendment has really been out of meaning since the National Guard Act of 1917.  I imagine that some Multi Billionaire could buy a small country and start building a force that might last a few days, months or more but no on the continental US.  Due to the various weapons laws (we can't even call them firearms anymore) they would be stopped long before they gain the weapons to have a ghost of  a chance.  Same goes for a state accumulating those weapons even though they can legally do so.
> 
> The Second amendment really didn't stay current much past 1850.  AFter that, Firearms started accelerate to the point where only Governments could afford them.  Much like the KIng and his Armory in the 12th century.
> 
> I have never demanded that we need to get rid of the 2nd amendment.  What I do suggest is we need to amend it to keep it current.  Make it more specific to today and less ambiguous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The thought that a private citizen (Other than a well prepared Multi Billionaire with his own private military) can even last but a few minutes against the force of the US Military is absurd. Luckily, there is a military tradition and law written into the Military UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) that is like the Military's version of the Constitution of the US, that bars this type of military action. Not even a President can wildly expect the Military to follow that order and remain in power for very long.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, the British had the most advanced fighting machine on the face of the earth, and expressed the same sentiments as you, how'd that work out for em?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, traitor, the British uses their forces in country.  We don't.  When any country's leader loses the backing of it's Military (the military doesn't have to do anything, just sit down and do nothing) they are effectively out of power right at that very moment.  If our President were to try and use the Federal Troops to guard the border, the Military would be forced to do nothing.  At that point, the President had just as well resign as he's days away from an impeachment anyway.  But he can use State Forces to guard the border or assist in NON Police Action with the permission from the State Governors.  Even if the Federal Government is paying for it, it's under the authority of the States and does not go against the Posse Comitatus Act.  He can even use Federal equipment but no Federal Troops.   The System works and works well, traitor.
> 
> And we ain't Britain.  You want to go help Britain fail, by all means, go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey Dumbass, this was British Country.
> 
> Actually, if there is a traitor here, that would appear to be you and your actions to declare "the people" subjegated to the Government. A REAL AMERICAN understands it is the Government that is subject to the Constitution and the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, but I want to keep the Constitution and the US intact.  You are investing in an organization that wants to dismantle both using a back door in the Constitution.  Your Extreme Right Wing group is supported by none other than the Koch Brothers so it's well funded.  If successful, then there would be another Civil War and the Federal Government would have no choice but to use Federal Troops and supporting State Troops to quell the rioting.  Sorry, but you still won't have your "Revolution" since you won't be classed much higher than a riot.
> 
> So, I can live with my place in life.
Click to expand...


You keep saying I am somehow investing in organizations. Of course you would have proof of that, right? If not, I guess you are simply lying. Full disclosure, if my investments in Amazon and Microsoft fund this Revolution you speak of, I am completely unaware of it.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Pop23 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thought that a private citizen (Other than a well prepared Multi Billionaire with his own private military) can even last but a few minutes against the force of the US Military is absurd.   Luckily, there is a military tradition and law written into the Military UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) that is like the Military's version of the Constitution of the US, that bars this type of military action.  Not even a President can wildly expect the Military to follow that order and remain in power for very long.
> 
> The first half of the 2nd amendment has really been out of meaning since the National Guard Act of 1917.  I imagine that some Multi Billionaire could buy a small country and start building a force that might last a few days, months or more but no on the continental US.  Due to the various weapons laws (we can't even call them firearms anymore) they would be stopped long before they gain the weapons to have a ghost of  a chance.  Same goes for a state accumulating those weapons even though they can legally do so.
> 
> The Second amendment really didn't stay current much past 1850.  AFter that, Firearms started accelerate to the point where only Governments could afford them.  Much like the KIng and his Armory in the 12th century.
> 
> I have never demanded that we need to get rid of the 2nd amendment.  What I do suggest is we need to amend it to keep it current.  Make it more specific to today and less ambiguous.
> 
> 
> 
> One citizen no
> 
> How abut a few million citizens?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about that ^^^:
> 
> Ever wonder how a few million would be fed, provided shelter, training, arms and enforced discipline? How would command and control work, are a million men under arms able to work well together without trained non commissioned officers for every dozen or so?  An LT or above to oversee a company?
> 
> A mob is not a military force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. it's a mob, ask those commanders in Vietnam how effective fighting a mob was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your Pipe Dream Revolution isn't well thought out.  Logistics is a major problem.  Just putting it together would get it noticed long before it became effective and ready to be used.  So you are going to get your millions to the fight.  Good friggin luck with that.  The Traffic Jam, the gas lines, and more will kill you in the first place.  Are you gong to practice mobilizing your millions before hand?  Woops, you just got noticed again.
> 
> The NVA and VC were NOT mobs.  Most of the VC were trained NVA (North Vietnam Regulars) that came down and trained South Vietnamese fighters.  They were well equipped, had a good supply line, excellent equipment that was portable and were extremely dedicated in their mission to win at any cost.  We knew we could win easily against a VC unit because they didn't have the support but when going against an NVA unit, Katy bar the Door, those were extremely good fighting men that were well equipped.  The second you forgot that you ended up dead.  But neither of these were MOBS.  They were dedicated fighting men with the will to win even if they had to die to do it.  At some point, we just got tired of killing them with no end in sight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We just need to hold off long enough for a good part of the Military says "what the fuck, we are attacking our own people"
> 
> And an equally fun part is that, thanks to the recent wars, a WHOLE HELLUVA lot of ex Military is now part of this so called unorganized militia. Cool beans aye.
> 
> Now, no one is calling for a revolution, except it appears your kinda jonesing for one. But if it happened by this Billionaire that you seem to be getting an erection over, you think for a moment (as was the case in the Revolutionary War), other world powers would just stand back and watch? Nah, I think the Militia would get some mighty fine backing fro the outside world.
> 
> And that, my friend, is just how respected our Constitution is to the Free World. They hate Tyrants like you.
Click to expand...


There you have it folks.  He's a died in the wool treasonous traitor to the nation by his own admission.  By keeping things all stirred up, he believes that he gives his cause support.  He may be right somewhat.  But anyone of us Retired Military Folks would disagree and we are about 3.2 million strong.  And any Service Member on Duty would disagree at another 2 million would disagree.  These people are living in fantasy land but bring confusion and pain to every other person they touch.  This is sad.  And never going to be successful.


----------



## Pop23

Daryl Hunt said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> One citizen no
> 
> How abut a few million citizens?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about that ^^^:
> 
> Ever wonder how a few million would be fed, provided shelter, training, arms and enforced discipline? How would command and control work, are a million men under arms able to work well together without trained non commissioned officers for every dozen or so?  An LT or above to oversee a company?
> 
> A mob is not a military force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. it's a mob, ask those commanders in Vietnam how effective fighting a mob was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your Pipe Dream Revolution isn't well thought out.  Logistics is a major problem.  Just putting it together would get it noticed long before it became effective and ready to be used.  So you are going to get your millions to the fight.  Good friggin luck with that.  The Traffic Jam, the gas lines, and more will kill you in the first place.  Are you gong to practice mobilizing your millions before hand?  Woops, you just got noticed again.
> 
> The NVA and VC were NOT mobs.  Most of the VC were trained NVA (North Vietnam Regulars) that came down and trained South Vietnamese fighters.  They were well equipped, had a good supply line, excellent equipment that was portable and were extremely dedicated in their mission to win at any cost.  We knew we could win easily against a VC unit because they didn't have the support but when going against an NVA unit, Katy bar the Door, those were extremely good fighting men that were well equipped.  The second you forgot that you ended up dead.  But neither of these were MOBS.  They were dedicated fighting men with the will to win even if they had to die to do it.  At some point, we just got tired of killing them with no end in sight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We just need to hold off long enough for a good part of the Military says "what the fuck, we are attacking our own people"
> 
> And an equally fun part is that, thanks to the recent wars, a WHOLE HELLUVA lot of ex Military is now part of this so called unorganized militia. Cool beans aye.
> 
> Now, no one is calling for a revolution, except it appears your kinda jonesing for one. But if it happened by this Billionaire that you seem to be getting an erection over, you think for a moment (as was the case in the Revolutionary War), other world powers would just stand back and watch? Nah, I think the Militia would get some mighty fine backing fro the outside world.
> 
> And that, my friend, is just how respected our Constitution is to the Free World. They hate Tyrants like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There you have it folks.  He's a died in the wool treasonous traitor to the nation by his own admission.  By keeping things all stirred up, he believes that he gives his cause support.  He may be right somewhat.  But anyone of us Retired Military Folks would disagree and we are about 3.2 million strong.  And any Service Member on Duty would disagree at another 2 million would disagree.  These people are living in fantasy land but bring confusion and pain to every other person they touch.  This is sad.  And never going to be successful.
Click to expand...


THE KING HAS SPOKEN TO HIS MINIONS ^^^^^^^^^ SO IT IS WRITTEN, SO IT SHALL BE DONE! ^^^^^^ What a boob


----------



## Daryl Hunt

westwall said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thought that a private citizen (Other than a well prepared Multi Billionaire with his own private military) can even last but a few minutes against the force of the US Military is absurd.   Luckily, there is a military tradition and law written into the Military UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) that is like the Military's version of the Constitution of the US, that bars this type of military action.  Not even a President can wildly expect the Military to follow that order and remain in power for very long.
> 
> The first half of the 2nd amendment has really been out of meaning since the National Guard Act of 1917.  I imagine that some Multi Billionaire could buy a small country and start building a force that might last a few days, months or more but no on the continental US.  Due to the various weapons laws (we can't even call them firearms anymore) they would be stopped long before they gain the weapons to have a ghost of  a chance.  Same goes for a state accumulating those weapons even though they can legally do so.
> 
> The Second amendment really didn't stay current much past 1850.  AFter that, Firearms started accelerate to the point where only Governments could afford them.  Much like the KIng and his Armory in the 12th century.
> 
> I have never demanded that we need to get rid of the 2nd amendment.  What I do suggest is we need to amend it to keep it current.  Make it more specific to today and less ambiguous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The thought that a private citizen (Other than a well prepared Multi Billionaire with his own private military) can even last but a few minutes against the force of the US Military is absurd. Luckily, there is a military tradition and law written into the Military UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) that is like the Military's version of the Constitution of the US, that bars this type of military action. Not even a President can wildly expect the Military to follow that order and remain in power for very long.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, the British had the most advanced fighting machine on the face of the earth, and expressed the same sentiments as you, how'd that work out for em?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, traitor, the British uses their forces in country.  We don't.  When any country's leader loses the backing of it's Military (the military doesn't have to do anything, just sit down and do nothing) they are effectively out of power right at that very moment.  If our President were to try and use the Federal Troops to guard the border, the Military would be forced to do nothing.  At that point, the President had just as well resign as he's days away from an impeachment anyway.  But he can use State Forces to guard the border or assist in NON Police Action with the permission from the State Governors.  Even if the Federal Government is paying for it, it's under the authority of the States and does not go against the Posse Comitatus Act.  He can even use Federal equipment but no Federal Troops.   The System works and works well, traitor.
> 
> And we ain't Britain.  You want to go help Britain fail, by all means, go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey Dumbass, this was British Country.
> 
> Actually, if there is a traitor here, that would appear to be you and your actions to declare "the people" subjegated to the Government. A REAL AMERICAN understands it is the Government that is subject to the Constitution and the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, but I want to keep the Constitution and the US intact.  You are investing in an organization that wants to dismantle both using a back door in the Constitution.  Your Extreme Right Wing group is supported by none other than the Koch Brothers so it's well funded.  If successful, then there would be another Civil War and the Federal Government would have no choice but to use Federal Troops and supporting State Troops to quell the rioting.  Sorry, but you still won't have your "Revolution" since you won't be classed much higher than a riot.
> 
> So, I can live with my place in life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And your side is funded by Soros.  The kochs provide a commodity that the world uses, yet your hero made his billions by destroying public employee pension funds throughout Asia and busting the Bank of England.  He is far more anti America than the kochs are.  Me thinks you need to do some more research.
Click to expand...


Actually, my side is supported by the Tax Payers of the United States of America.  Neither the Soros nor the Kochs pay much in the form of Taxes in percentage of their income as the normal tax payer.  Are you admitting that you are in the employ of the Koch Brothers?  Not something I would admit to willingly.


----------



## westwall

Daryl Hunt said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, the British had the most advanced fighting machine on the face of the earth, and expressed the same sentiments as you, how'd that work out for em?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, traitor, the British uses their forces in country.  We don't.  When any country's leader loses the backing of it's Military (the military doesn't have to do anything, just sit down and do nothing) they are effectively out of power right at that very moment.  If our President were to try and use the Federal Troops to guard the border, the Military would be forced to do nothing.  At that point, the President had just as well resign as he's days away from an impeachment anyway.  But he can use State Forces to guard the border or assist in NON Police Action with the permission from the State Governors.  Even if the Federal Government is paying for it, it's under the authority of the States and does not go against the Posse Comitatus Act.  He can even use Federal equipment but no Federal Troops.   The System works and works well, traitor.
> 
> And we ain't Britain.  You want to go help Britain fail, by all means, go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey Dumbass, this was British Country.
> 
> Actually, if there is a traitor here, that would appear to be you and your actions to declare "the people" subjegated to the Government. A REAL AMERICAN understands it is the Government that is subject to the Constitution and the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, but I want to keep the Constitution and the US intact.  You are investing in an organization that wants to dismantle both using a back door in the Constitution.  Your Extreme Right Wing group is supported by none other than the Koch Brothers so it's well funded.  If successful, then there would be another Civil War and the Federal Government would have no choice but to use Federal Troops and supporting State Troops to quell the rioting.  Sorry, but you still won't have your "Revolution" since you won't be classed much higher than a riot.
> 
> So, I can live with my place in life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And your side is funded by Soros.  The kochs provide a commodity that the world uses, yet your hero made his billions by destroying public employee pension funds throughout Asia and busting the Bank of England.  He is far more anti America than the kochs are.  Me thinks you need to do some more research.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, my side is supported by the Tax Payers of the United States of America.  Neither the Soros nor the Kochs pay much in the form of Taxes in percentage of their income as the normal tax payer.  Are you admitting that you are in the employ of the Koch Brothers?  Not something I would admit to willingly.
Click to expand...






Wrong.  The current attempt to destroy the 2nd Amendment, and remove our borders is led by soros and Co.  Trump was elected because the PEOPLE of this country don't want those policies.  The MSM is in lock step with him and his cronies which is why you rarely hear about the beneficial uses of firearms, and why the open borders groups get their message out, but no one else does.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

westwall said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, traitor, the British uses their forces in country.  We don't.  When any country's leader loses the backing of it's Military (the military doesn't have to do anything, just sit down and do nothing) they are effectively out of power right at that very moment.  If our President were to try and use the Federal Troops to guard the border, the Military would be forced to do nothing.  At that point, the President had just as well resign as he's days away from an impeachment anyway.  But he can use State Forces to guard the border or assist in NON Police Action with the permission from the State Governors.  Even if the Federal Government is paying for it, it's under the authority of the States and does not go against the Posse Comitatus Act.  He can even use Federal equipment but no Federal Troops.   The System works and works well, traitor.
> 
> And we ain't Britain.  You want to go help Britain fail, by all means, go.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Dumbass, this was British Country.
> 
> Actually, if there is a traitor here, that would appear to be you and your actions to declare "the people" subjegated to the Government. A REAL AMERICAN understands it is the Government that is subject to the Constitution and the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, but I want to keep the Constitution and the US intact.  You are investing in an organization that wants to dismantle both using a back door in the Constitution.  Your Extreme Right Wing group is supported by none other than the Koch Brothers so it's well funded.  If successful, then there would be another Civil War and the Federal Government would have no choice but to use Federal Troops and supporting State Troops to quell the rioting.  Sorry, but you still won't have your "Revolution" since you won't be classed much higher than a riot.
> 
> So, I can live with my place in life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And your side is funded by Soros.  The kochs provide a commodity that the world uses, yet your hero made his billions by destroying public employee pension funds throughout Asia and busting the Bank of England.  He is far more anti America than the kochs are.  Me thinks you need to do some more research.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, my side is supported by the Tax Payers of the United States of America.  Neither the Soros nor the Kochs pay much in the form of Taxes in percentage of their income as the normal tax payer.  Are you admitting that you are in the employ of the Koch Brothers?  Not something I would admit to willingly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  The current attempt to destroy the 2nd Amendment, and remove our borders is led by soros and Co.  Trump was elected because the PEOPLE of this country don't want those policies.  The MSM is in lock step with him and his cronies which is why you rarely hear about the beneficial uses of firearms, and why the open borders groups get their message out, but no one else does.
Click to expand...


I did some research into the COSA and found the backers to be the Koch Brothers.  Then I dug a bit deeper and found that they were using it to not only do the things they say but were advocating weakening other parts of the Constitution using the Continental Congress to do the heavy lifting.  The end result  would allow states to leave the nation.  As crazy as that sounds, it's far worse than just removing the 2nd amendment.

As for removing the 2nd amendment, good friggin luck with that.  Now,if they were to be working to bring it into the 21st century then you might have a worry.  Then Millions that are against it now would be for it then.  Shoot, we have all but shredded the 2nd amendment anyway.  We might as well rewrite it to modern terms and then stick with it and end all this nonsensical fighting.


----------



## Pop23

westwall said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, traitor, the British uses their forces in country.  We don't.  When any country's leader loses the backing of it's Military (the military doesn't have to do anything, just sit down and do nothing) they are effectively out of power right at that very moment.  If our President were to try and use the Federal Troops to guard the border, the Military would be forced to do nothing.  At that point, the President had just as well resign as he's days away from an impeachment anyway.  But he can use State Forces to guard the border or assist in NON Police Action with the permission from the State Governors.  Even if the Federal Government is paying for it, it's under the authority of the States and does not go against the Posse Comitatus Act.  He can even use Federal equipment but no Federal Troops.   The System works and works well, traitor.
> 
> And we ain't Britain.  You want to go help Britain fail, by all means, go.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Dumbass, this was British Country.
> 
> Actually, if there is a traitor here, that would appear to be you and your actions to declare "the people" subjegated to the Government. A REAL AMERICAN understands it is the Government that is subject to the Constitution and the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, but I want to keep the Constitution and the US intact.  You are investing in an organization that wants to dismantle both using a back door in the Constitution.  Your Extreme Right Wing group is supported by none other than the Koch Brothers so it's well funded.  If successful, then there would be another Civil War and the Federal Government would have no choice but to use Federal Troops and supporting State Troops to quell the rioting.  Sorry, but you still won't have your "Revolution" since you won't be classed much higher than a riot.
> 
> So, I can live with my place in life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And your side is funded by Soros.  The kochs provide a commodity that the world uses, yet your hero made his billions by destroying public employee pension funds throughout Asia and busting the Bank of England.  He is far more anti America than the kochs are.  Me thinks you need to do some more research.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, my side is supported by the Tax Payers of the United States of America.  Neither the Soros nor the Kochs pay much in the form of Taxes in percentage of their income as the normal tax payer.  Are you admitting that you are in the employ of the Koch Brothers?  Not something I would admit to willingly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  The current attempt to destroy the 2nd Amendment, and remove our borders is led by soros and Co.  Trump was elected because the PEOPLE of this country don't want those policies.  The MSM is in lock step with him and his cronies which is why you rarely hear about the beneficial uses of firearms, and why the open borders groups get their message out, but no one else does.
Click to expand...


Yeah, well Darly did research, and since Daryl did research it must be true!


----------



## danielpalos

There is no provision for excuses in the federal doctrine, Only results.


----------



## Pop23

danielpalos said:


> There is no provision for excuses in the federal doctrine, Only results.



Now that's deep, real deep


----------



## WinterBorn

Wry Catcher said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice, except for its inclusion within the BILL OF RIGHTS, which of course would make zero sense using your logic. But it’s there, so.
> 
> Yours is the nice story Bro.
> 
> 
> 
> The security of a free State to its well regulated militia, is a States' sovereign right.  It says so in our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTF?
> 
> In the part of the constitution (the bill of rights) that expresses the rights of the INDIVIDUAL, they decided to lump in that A STATE HAS THE RIGHT TO FORM A MILITIA?
> 
> That makes absolutely ZERO sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You make zero sense.  The actual words in our Second Amendment clearly declare what is Necessary to the security of a free State; it is mostly definitely not, the whole and entire concept of natural and individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is you who are confused.  So that the State CAN remain free, it is essential that the natural Right of defense be acknowledged.  Firearms ownership by the PEOPLE is how that is maintained.  Not the government, the PEOPLE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you follow current events?  Imagine small arms held by the Syrian People, against the 20th Century war planes dropping ordinance and chemical weapons.  Whose winning those engagements?
> 
> Then consider the effect if citizens could own the arms capable of engaging a 21st century military force in the US?   In my opinion, having served on a Destroyer in the late 60's, how that vessel would have done against the 21st Century Navy - not well and not for long.
> 
> Your reasoning is absurd.  Today the cost and size of our military, and the training, cannot be defeated or even slowed by a civilian force, and even if the arms of war were legal in the US.  Have you thought about how these arms might be used in small engagements against the civilian population (think criminal gangs).
Click to expand...


Actually, I think an armed civilian population could fare reasonably well against our gov't.   First of all, you are correct that our military could decimate a population armed with small arms.  But would they be able to do so without decimating the entire civilian population?   Remember the uproar when our military shot up unarmed civilians in Iraq?   Now imagine that being US citizens.  The armed population would blend in with the rest of the population.   It would not be a matter of defeating the US military, but doing enough damage to force them to engage and then take enough damage to force public opinion into the equation.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the Bill of Rights is part of the US Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but the Bill of Rights is not the Constitution.  It's a seperate document that has no legal standings.  The Constitution did take it's first 10 amendments from it but the constitution is more than that and is the law of the land.  The Bill of Rights is just a supporting document.  Anyone states that we must follow the bill or rights over the Constitution doesn't get my support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not a matter of the Bill of Rights OVER the US Constitution.  The Bill of Rights is PART of the US Constitutions.  Those amendments are TO the US Constitution.  To pretend they are separate documents is incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Bill of Rights, is not a Constitution unto itself; they don't have their own, legal Standing without our federal Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a part of the constitution and clearly a very important part as it is relegated the starting position of all the amendments. The first 10 are delegated to the superior rights that the PEOPLE have to it's government. But for some unknown reason you think that, for some unknown purpose the Founding Fathers snuck in an amendment, near the top of this list, that served a far different purpose than securing the Peoples rights.
> 
> Un friggin real the pretzel twisting you've gone through.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are, merely Articles of Amendment, that is all.
Click to expand...


They are, in fact, amendments to the US Constitution.  That makes them part of the US Constitutions.


----------



## WinterBorn

Pop23 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but the Bill of Rights is not the Constitution.  It's a seperate document that has no legal standings.  The Constitution did take it's first 10 amendments from it but the constitution is more than that and is the law of the land.  The Bill of Rights is just a supporting document.  Anyone states that we must follow the bill or rights over the Constitution doesn't get my support.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a matter of the Bill of Rights OVER the US Constitution.  The Bill of Rights is PART of the US Constitutions.  Those amendments are TO the US Constitution.  To pretend they are separate documents is incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Bill of Rights, is not a Constitution unto itself; they don't have their own, legal Standing without our federal Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a part of the constitution and clearly a very important part as it is relegated the starting position of all the amendments. The first 10 are delegated to the superior rights that the PEOPLE have to it's government. But for some unknown reason you think that, for some unknown purpose the Founding Fathers snuck in an amendment, near the top of this list, that served a far different purpose than securing the Peoples rights.
> 
> Un friggin real the pretzel twisting you've gone through.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are, merely Articles of Amendment, that is all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, no freedom of speech for you, cuz afterall, their just Articles of Amendments.
Click to expand...


You have to understand how delusional Daniel actually is.  He insists that out individual rights come from the state constitutions, and that the US Constitution is largely powerless.


----------



## Pop23

WinterBorn said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The security of a free State to its well regulated militia, is a States' sovereign right.  It says so in our Second Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WTF?
> 
> In the part of the constitution (the bill of rights) that expresses the rights of the INDIVIDUAL, they decided to lump in that A STATE HAS THE RIGHT TO FORM A MILITIA?
> 
> That makes absolutely ZERO sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You make zero sense.  The actual words in our Second Amendment clearly declare what is Necessary to the security of a free State; it is mostly definitely not, the whole and entire concept of natural and individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is you who are confused.  So that the State CAN remain free, it is essential that the natural Right of defense be acknowledged.  Firearms ownership by the PEOPLE is how that is maintained.  Not the government, the PEOPLE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you follow current events?  Imagine small arms held by the Syrian People, against the 20th Century war planes dropping ordinance and chemical weapons.  Whose winning those engagements?
> 
> Then consider the effect if citizens could own the arms capable of engaging a 21st century military force in the US?   In my opinion, having served on a Destroyer in the late 60's, how that vessel would have done against the 21st Century Navy - not well and not for long.
> 
> Your reasoning is absurd.  Today the cost and size of our military, and the training, cannot be defeated or even slowed by a civilian force, and even if the arms of war were legal in the US.  Have you thought about how these arms might be used in small engagements against the civilian population (think criminal gangs).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I think an armed civilian population could fare reasonably well against our gov't.   First of all, you are correct that our military could decimate a population armed with small arms.  But would they be able to do so without decimating the entire civilian population?   Remember the uproar when our military shot up unarmed civilians in Iraq?   Now imagine that being US citizens.  The armed population would blend in with the rest of the population.   It would not be a matter of defeating the US military, but doing enough damage to force them to engage and then take enough damage to force public opinion into the equation.
Click to expand...


Can you imagine England, France, Poland, Canada or the other NATO countries standing by while the United States Military bombed Dallas, Omaha or Cleveland?

Highly unlikely.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the Bill of Rights is part of the US Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but the Bill of Rights is not the Constitution.  It's a seperate document that has no legal standings.  The Constitution did take it's first 10 amendments from it but the constitution is more than that and is the law of the land.  The Bill of Rights is just a supporting document.  Anyone states that we must follow the bill or rights over the Constitution doesn't get my support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not a matter of the Bill of Rights OVER the US Constitution.  The Bill of Rights is PART of the US Constitutions.  Those amendments are TO the US Constitution.  To pretend they are separate documents is incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Bill of Rights, is not a Constitution unto itself; they don't have their own, legal Standing without our federal Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's clarify things, shall we?
> 
> According to Merriam Webster, the definition of "amend" is:
> "*Definition of amend*
> transitive verb
> 1 *: *to put right;  especially *: *to make emendations in (something, such as a text)
> 
> amended the manuscript
> 2 a *: *to change or modify (something) for the better *: *improve
> 
> amend the situation
> b *: *to alter especially in phraseology;  especially *: *to alter formally by modification, deletion, or addition
> 
> amend a constitution"
> 
> This means that the amendments to the US Constitution are changes to the original document.   This also means that the Constitutional Amendments are part of the US Constitution.   And unless you can find any contradictory laws in the US Constitution, they stand as the law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then, why does the right wing imply, our Second Article of Amendment is a Constitution unto itself; instead of merely the the second Article which happens to amend a point about the security needs of a free State.
Click to expand...


No one I have seen has implied anything of the kind.   Every conservative I have seen simply sees the 2nd Amendment as a part of the US Constitution, and expects it to be treated as such.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a matter of the Bill of Rights OVER the US Constitution.  The Bill of Rights is PART of the US Constitutions.  Those amendments are TO the US Constitution.  To pretend they are separate documents is incorrect.
> 
> 
> 
> Our Bill of Rights, is not a Constitution unto itself; they don't have their own, legal Standing without our federal Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a part of the constitution and clearly a very important part as it is relegated the starting position of all the amendments. The first 10 are delegated to the superior rights that the PEOPLE have to it's government. But for some unknown reason you think that, for some unknown purpose the Founding Fathers snuck in an amendment, near the top of this list, that served a far different purpose than securing the Peoples rights.
> 
> Un friggin real the pretzel twisting you've gone through.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are, merely Articles of Amendment, that is all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, no freedom of speech for you, cuz afterall, their just Articles of Amendments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have to understand how delusional Daniel actually is.  He insists that out individual rights come from the state constitutions, and that the US Constitution is largely powerless.
Click to expand...

lol.  You don't know what you are talking about.  Only the right wing appeals to ignorance of their own propaganda and rhetoric concerning natural and individual rights being in our federal Constitution.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but the Bill of Rights is not the Constitution.  It's a seperate document that has no legal standings.  The Constitution did take it's first 10 amendments from it but the constitution is more than that and is the law of the land.  The Bill of Rights is just a supporting document.  Anyone states that we must follow the bill or rights over the Constitution doesn't get my support.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a matter of the Bill of Rights OVER the US Constitution.  The Bill of Rights is PART of the US Constitutions.  Those amendments are TO the US Constitution.  To pretend they are separate documents is incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Bill of Rights, is not a Constitution unto itself; they don't have their own, legal Standing without our federal Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a part of the constitution and clearly a very important part as it is relegated the starting position of all the amendments. The first 10 are delegated to the superior rights that the PEOPLE have to it's government. But for some unknown reason you think that, for some unknown purpose the Founding Fathers snuck in an amendment, near the top of this list, that served a far different purpose than securing the Peoples rights.
> 
> Un friggin real the pretzel twisting you've gone through.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are, merely Articles of Amendment, that is all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are, in fact, amendments to the US Constitution.  That makes them part of the US Constitutions.
Click to expand...

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.

Here is what our Second Amendment, amends:



> 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;


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but the Bill of Rights is not the Constitution.  It's a seperate document that has no legal standings.  The Constitution did take it's first 10 amendments from it but the constitution is more than that and is the law of the land.  The Bill of Rights is just a supporting document.  Anyone states that we must follow the bill or rights over the Constitution doesn't get my support.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a matter of the Bill of Rights OVER the US Constitution.  The Bill of Rights is PART of the US Constitutions.  Those amendments are TO the US Constitution.  To pretend they are separate documents is incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Bill of Rights, is not a Constitution unto itself; they don't have their own, legal Standing without our federal Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's clarify things, shall we?
> 
> According to Merriam Webster, the definition of "amend" is:
> "*Definition of amend*
> transitive verb
> 1 *: *to put right;  especially *: *to make emendations in (something, such as a text)
> 
> amended the manuscript
> 2 a *: *to change or modify (something) for the better *: *improve
> 
> amend the situation
> b *: *to alter especially in phraseology;  especially *: *to alter formally by modification, deletion, or addition
> 
> amend a constitution"
> 
> This means that the amendments to the US Constitution are changes to the original document.   This also means that the Constitutional Amendments are part of the US Constitution.   And unless you can find any contradictory laws in the US Constitution, they stand as the law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then, why does the right wing imply, our Second Article of Amendment is a Constitution unto itself; instead of merely the the second Article which happens to amend a point about the security needs of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one I have seen has implied anything of the kind.   Every conservative I have seen simply sees the 2nd Amendment as a part of the US Constitution, and expects it to be treated as such.
Click to expand...

only the right wing appeals to ignorance of their own propaganda and rhetoric, regarding the whole and entire concept of natural and individual rights, in our federal Constitution.


----------



## Pop23

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a matter of the Bill of Rights OVER the US Constitution.  The Bill of Rights is PART of the US Constitutions.  Those amendments are TO the US Constitution.  To pretend they are separate documents is incorrect.
> 
> 
> 
> Our Bill of Rights, is not a Constitution unto itself; they don't have their own, legal Standing without our federal Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a part of the constitution and clearly a very important part as it is relegated the starting position of all the amendments. The first 10 are delegated to the superior rights that the PEOPLE have to it's government. But for some unknown reason you think that, for some unknown purpose the Founding Fathers snuck in an amendment, near the top of this list, that served a far different purpose than securing the Peoples rights.
> 
> Un friggin real the pretzel twisting you've gone through.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are, merely Articles of Amendment, that is all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are, in fact, amendments to the US Constitution.  That makes them part of the US Constitutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.
> 
> Here is what our Second Amendment, amends:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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;
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Opinion noted


and rejected


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Bill of Rights, is not a Constitution unto itself; they don't have their own, legal Standing without our federal Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a part of the constitution and clearly a very important part as it is relegated the starting position of all the amendments. The first 10 are delegated to the superior rights that the PEOPLE have to it's government. But for some unknown reason you think that, for some unknown purpose the Founding Fathers snuck in an amendment, near the top of this list, that served a far different purpose than securing the Peoples rights.
> 
> Un friggin real the pretzel twisting you've gone through.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are, merely Articles of Amendment, that is all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, no freedom of speech for you, cuz afterall, their just Articles of Amendments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have to understand how delusional Daniel actually is.  He insists that out individual rights come from the state constitutions, and that the US Constitution is largely powerless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  You don't know what you are talking about.  Only the right wing appeals to ignorance of their own propaganda and rhetoric concerning natural and individual rights being in our federal Constitution.
Click to expand...


I understand quite well.

Between the US Constitution and any state constitutions, you only have to look at which one is the standard and which one has to follow that standard.

The US Constitution is the standard and the law of the land.


----------



## danielpalos

Pop23 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Bill of Rights, is not a Constitution unto itself; they don't have their own, legal Standing without our federal Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a part of the constitution and clearly a very important part as it is relegated the starting position of all the amendments. The first 10 are delegated to the superior rights that the PEOPLE have to it's government. But for some unknown reason you think that, for some unknown purpose the Founding Fathers snuck in an amendment, near the top of this list, that served a far different purpose than securing the Peoples rights.
> 
> Un friggin real the pretzel twisting you've gone through.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are, merely Articles of Amendment, that is all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are, in fact, amendments to the US Constitution.  That makes them part of the US Constitutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.
> 
> Here is what our Second Amendment, amends:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Opinion noted
> 
> 
> and rejected
Click to expand...

lol.  simple rejection is not a valid refutation.

fallacy, is all the right wing can muster, apparently.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a part of the constitution and clearly a very important part as it is relegated the starting position of all the amendments. The first 10 are delegated to the superior rights that the PEOPLE have to it's government. But for some unknown reason you think that, for some unknown purpose the Founding Fathers snuck in an amendment, near the top of this list, that served a far different purpose than securing the Peoples rights.
> 
> Un friggin real the pretzel twisting you've gone through.
> 
> 
> 
> They are, merely Articles of Amendment, that is all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, no freedom of speech for you, cuz afterall, their just Articles of Amendments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have to understand how delusional Daniel actually is.  He insists that out individual rights come from the state constitutions, and that the US Constitution is largely powerless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  You don't know what you are talking about.  Only the right wing appeals to ignorance of their own propaganda and rhetoric concerning natural and individual rights being in our federal Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand quite well.
> 
> Between the US Constitution and any state constitutions, you only have to look at which one is the standard and which one has to follow that standard.
> 
> The US Constitution is the standard and the law of the land.
Click to expand...

yet, the right wing claims, the second clause of the second article, is what really really matters, regardless of what the rest of our Constitution says.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a matter of the Bill of Rights OVER the US Constitution.  The Bill of Rights is PART of the US Constitutions.  Those amendments are TO the US Constitution.  To pretend they are separate documents is incorrect.
> 
> 
> 
> Our Bill of Rights, is not a Constitution unto itself; they don't have their own, legal Standing without our federal Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's clarify things, shall we?
> 
> According to Merriam Webster, the definition of "amend" is:
> "*Definition of amend*
> transitive verb
> 1 *: *to put right;  especially *: *to make emendations in (something, such as a text)
> 
> amended the manuscript
> 2 a *: *to change or modify (something) for the better *: *improve
> 
> amend the situation
> b *: *to alter especially in phraseology;  especially *: *to alter formally by modification, deletion, or addition
> 
> amend a constitution"
> 
> This means that the amendments to the US Constitution are changes to the original document.   This also means that the Constitutional Amendments are part of the US Constitution.   And unless you can find any contradictory laws in the US Constitution, they stand as the law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then, why does the right wing imply, our Second Article of Amendment is a Constitution unto itself; instead of merely the the second Article which happens to amend a point about the security needs of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one I have seen has implied anything of the kind.   Every conservative I have seen simply sees the 2nd Amendment as a part of the US Constitution, and expects it to be treated as such.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only the right wing appeals to ignorance of their own propaganda and rhetoric, regarding the whole and entire concept of natural and individual rights, in our federal Constitution.
Click to expand...


Your reply has little or no content.

I have no appealed to ignorance at all.   I have stated the facts concerning the US Constitution and it's superiority over the state constitutions.  And I have stated that I have seen no conservatives imply that the 2nd amendment is a constitution unto itself.

The proof of my statements is that past attempts, by state constitutions, to take away constitutionally guaranteed rights have been ruled unconstitutional and defeated.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are, merely Articles of Amendment, that is all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, no freedom of speech for you, cuz afterall, their just Articles of Amendments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have to understand how delusional Daniel actually is.  He insists that out individual rights come from the state constitutions, and that the US Constitution is largely powerless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  You don't know what you are talking about.  Only the right wing appeals to ignorance of their own propaganda and rhetoric concerning natural and individual rights being in our federal Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand quite well.
> 
> Between the US Constitution and any state constitutions, you only have to look at which one is the standard and which one has to follow that standard.
> 
> The US Constitution is the standard and the law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yet, the right wing claims, the second clause of the second article, is what really really matters, regardless of what the rest of our Constitution says.
Click to expand...


Who has claimed this?   Show me an example.    (like THAT will happen)

And what does the rest of our constitution say that contradicts the 2nd amendment?


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

Wry Catcher said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You make zero sense.  The actual words in our Second Amendment clearly declare what is Necessary to the security of a free State; it is mostly definitely not, the whole and entire concept of natural and individual rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is you who are confused.  So that the State CAN remain free, it is essential that the natural Right of defense be acknowledged.  Firearms ownership by the PEOPLE is how that is maintained.  Not the government, the PEOPLE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you follow current events?  Imagine small arms held by the Syrian People, against the 20th Century war planes dropping ordinance and chemical weapons.  Whose winning those engagements?
> 
> Then consider the effect if citizens could own the arms capable of engaging a 21st century military force in the US?   In my opinion, having served on a Destroyer in the late 60's, how that vessel would have done against the 21st Century Navy - not well and not for long.
> 
> Your reasoning is absurd.  Today the cost and size of our military, and the training, cannot be defeated or even slowed by a civilian force, and even if the arms of war were legal in the US.  Have you thought about how these arms might be used in small engagements against the civilian population (think criminal gangs).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The thought that a private citizen (Other than a well prepared Multi Billionaire with his own private military) can even last but a few minutes against the force of the US Military is absurd.   Luckily, there is a military tradition and law written into the Military UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) that is like the Military's version of the Constitution of the US, that bars this type of military action.  Not even a President can wildly expect the Military to follow that order and remain in power for very long.
> 
> The first half of the 2nd amendment has really been out of meaning since the National Guard Act of 1917.  I imagine that some Multi Billionaire could buy a small country and start building a force that might last a few days, months or more but no on the continental US.  Due to the various weapons laws (we can't even call them firearms anymore) they would be stopped long before they gain the weapons to have a ghost of  a chance.  Same goes for a state accumulating those weapons even though they can legally do so.
> 
> The Second amendment really didn't stay current much past 1850.  AFter that, Firearms started accelerate to the point where only Governments could afford them.  Much like the KIng and his Armory in the 12th century.
> 
> I have never demanded that we need to get rid of the 2nd amendment.  What I do suggest is we need to amend it to keep it current.  Make it more specific to today and less ambiguous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One citizen no
> 
> How abut a few million citizens?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about that ^^^:
> 
> Ever wonder how a few million would be fed, provided shelter, training, arms and enforced discipline? How would command and control work, are a million men under arms able to work well together without trained non commissioned officers for every dozen or so?  An LT or above to oversee a company?
> 
> A mob is not a military force.
Click to expand...


No clue about insurgent warfare, eh?  Even after 17 years of it in the ME.  Unreal.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Bill of Rights, is not a Constitution unto itself; they don't have their own, legal Standing without our federal Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's clarify things, shall we?
> 
> According to Merriam Webster, the definition of "amend" is:
> "*Definition of amend*
> transitive verb
> 1 *: *to put right;  especially *: *to make emendations in (something, such as a text)
> 
> amended the manuscript
> 2 a *: *to change or modify (something) for the better *: *improve
> 
> amend the situation
> b *: *to alter especially in phraseology;  especially *: *to alter formally by modification, deletion, or addition
> 
> amend a constitution"
> 
> This means that the amendments to the US Constitution are changes to the original document.   This also means that the Constitutional Amendments are part of the US Constitution.   And unless you can find any contradictory laws in the US Constitution, they stand as the law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then, why does the right wing imply, our Second Article of Amendment is a Constitution unto itself; instead of merely the the second Article which happens to amend a point about the security needs of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one I have seen has implied anything of the kind.   Every conservative I have seen simply sees the 2nd Amendment as a part of the US Constitution, and expects it to be treated as such.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only the right wing appeals to ignorance of their own propaganda and rhetoric, regarding the whole and entire concept of natural and individual rights, in our federal Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your reply has little or no content.
> 
> I have no appealed to ignorance at all.   I have stated the facts concerning the US Constitution and it's superiority over the state constitutions.  And I have stated that I have seen no conservatives imply that the 2nd amendment is a constitution unto itself.
> 
> The proof of my statements is that past attempts, by state constitutions, to take away constitutionally guaranteed rights have been ruled unconstitutional and defeated.
Click to expand...

lol.  the right wing alleges, natural and individual rights are to be found, in the second clause of Article the Second.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, no freedom of speech for you, cuz afterall, their just Articles of Amendments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have to understand how delusional Daniel actually is.  He insists that out individual rights come from the state constitutions, and that the US Constitution is largely powerless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  You don't know what you are talking about.  Only the right wing appeals to ignorance of their own propaganda and rhetoric concerning natural and individual rights being in our federal Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand quite well.
> 
> Between the US Constitution and any state constitutions, you only have to look at which one is the standard and which one has to follow that standard.
> 
> The US Constitution is the standard and the law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yet, the right wing claims, the second clause of the second article, is what really really matters, regardless of what the rest of our Constitution says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who has claimed this?   Show me an example.    (like THAT will happen)
> 
> And what does the rest of our constitution say that contradicts the 2nd amendment?
Click to expand...

lol.  only the right wing is that clueless and that causeless, in the public domain.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's clarify things, shall we?
> 
> According to Merriam Webster, the definition of "amend" is:
> "*Definition of amend*
> transitive verb
> 1 *: *to put right;  especially *: *to make emendations in (something, such as a text)
> 
> amended the manuscript
> 2 a *: *to change or modify (something) for the better *: *improve
> 
> amend the situation
> b *: *to alter especially in phraseology;  especially *: *to alter formally by modification, deletion, or addition
> 
> amend a constitution"
> 
> This means that the amendments to the US Constitution are changes to the original document.   This also means that the Constitutional Amendments are part of the US Constitution.   And unless you can find any contradictory laws in the US Constitution, they stand as the law of the land.
> 
> 
> 
> Then, why does the right wing imply, our Second Article of Amendment is a Constitution unto itself; instead of merely the the second Article which happens to amend a point about the security needs of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one I have seen has implied anything of the kind.   Every conservative I have seen simply sees the 2nd Amendment as a part of the US Constitution, and expects it to be treated as such.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only the right wing appeals to ignorance of their own propaganda and rhetoric, regarding the whole and entire concept of natural and individual rights, in our federal Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your reply has little or no content.
> 
> I have no appealed to ignorance at all.   I have stated the facts concerning the US Constitution and it's superiority over the state constitutions.  And I have stated that I have seen no conservatives imply that the 2nd amendment is a constitution unto itself.
> 
> The proof of my statements is that past attempts, by state constitutions, to take away constitutionally guaranteed rights have been ruled unconstitutional and defeated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  the right wing alleges, natural and individual rights are to be found, in the second clause of Article the Second.
Click to expand...


Do they?   Or do they allege that the 2nd amendment is one of their individual rights?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have to understand how delusional Daniel actually is.  He insists that out individual rights come from the state constitutions, and that the US Constitution is largely powerless.
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  You don't know what you are talking about.  Only the right wing appeals to ignorance of their own propaganda and rhetoric concerning natural and individual rights being in our federal Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand quite well.
> 
> Between the US Constitution and any state constitutions, you only have to look at which one is the standard and which one has to follow that standard.
> 
> The US Constitution is the standard and the law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yet, the right wing claims, the second clause of the second article, is what really really matters, regardless of what the rest of our Constitution says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who has claimed this?   Show me an example.    (like THAT will happen)
> 
> And what does the rest of our constitution say that contradicts the 2nd amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  only the right wing is that clueless and that causeless, in the public domain.
Click to expand...


You claimed that the right wing claim something, but cannot show any examples.
YOu claim that there is something in the US Constitution that contradicts the 2nd amendment, but you refuse to detail what that is.

You are a waste of time here.  Every argument you have presented on this topic has been soundly refuted or is so vague as to be worthless without elaboration or backup.  And you steadfastly refuse to provide backup.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a matter of the Bill of Rights OVER the US Constitution.  The Bill of Rights is PART of the US Constitutions.  Those amendments are TO the US Constitution.  To pretend they are separate documents is incorrect.
> 
> 
> 
> Our Bill of Rights, is not a Constitution unto itself; they don't have their own, legal Standing without our federal Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a part of the constitution and clearly a very important part as it is relegated the starting position of all the amendments. The first 10 are delegated to the superior rights that the PEOPLE have to it's government. But for some unknown reason you think that, for some unknown purpose the Founding Fathers snuck in an amendment, near the top of this list, that served a far different purpose than securing the Peoples rights.
> 
> Un friggin real the pretzel twisting you've gone through.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are, merely Articles of Amendment, that is all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are, in fact, amendments to the US Constitution.  That makes them part of the US Constitutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.
> 
> Here is what our Second Amendment, amends:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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;
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


They took them seriously enough to give them all 3 keys to Washington DC this time around.  You had better start taking them seriously as well.  They may not act like they are taking you too seriously, but trust me, they are.  They are serious as a heart attack.  And will use almost any and all methods.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then, why does the right wing imply, our Second Article of Amendment is a Constitution unto itself; instead of merely the the second Article which happens to amend a point about the security needs of a free State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one I have seen has implied anything of the kind.   Every conservative I have seen simply sees the 2nd Amendment as a part of the US Constitution, and expects it to be treated as such.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only the right wing appeals to ignorance of their own propaganda and rhetoric, regarding the whole and entire concept of natural and individual rights, in our federal Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your reply has little or no content.
> 
> I have no appealed to ignorance at all.   I have stated the facts concerning the US Constitution and it's superiority over the state constitutions.  And I have stated that I have seen no conservatives imply that the 2nd amendment is a constitution unto itself.
> 
> The proof of my statements is that past attempts, by state constitutions, to take away constitutionally guaranteed rights have been ruled unconstitutional and defeated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  the right wing alleges, natural and individual rights are to be found, in the second clause of Article the Second.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do they?   Or do they allege that the 2nd amendment is one of their individual rights?
Click to expand...

to be well regulated?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  You don't know what you are talking about.  Only the right wing appeals to ignorance of their own propaganda and rhetoric concerning natural and individual rights being in our federal Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand quite well.
> 
> Between the US Constitution and any state constitutions, you only have to look at which one is the standard and which one has to follow that standard.
> 
> The US Constitution is the standard and the law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yet, the right wing claims, the second clause of the second article, is what really really matters, regardless of what the rest of our Constitution says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who has claimed this?   Show me an example.    (like THAT will happen)
> 
> And what does the rest of our constitution say that contradicts the 2nd amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  only the right wing is that clueless and that causeless, in the public domain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You claimed that the right wing claim something, but cannot show any examples.
> YOu claim that there is something in the US Constitution that contradicts the 2nd amendment, but you refuse to detail what that is.
> 
> You are a waste of time here.  Every argument you have presented on this topic has been soundly refuted or is so vague as to be worthless without elaboration or backup.  And you steadfastly refuse to provide backup.
Click to expand...

only the disingenuous right wing, claims that.


----------



## danielpalos

Daryl Hunt said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Bill of Rights, is not a Constitution unto itself; they don't have their own, legal Standing without our federal Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a part of the constitution and clearly a very important part as it is relegated the starting position of all the amendments. The first 10 are delegated to the superior rights that the PEOPLE have to it's government. But for some unknown reason you think that, for some unknown purpose the Founding Fathers snuck in an amendment, near the top of this list, that served a far different purpose than securing the Peoples rights.
> 
> Un friggin real the pretzel twisting you've gone through.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are, merely Articles of Amendment, that is all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are, in fact, amendments to the US Constitution.  That makes them part of the US Constitutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.
> 
> Here is what our Second Amendment, amends:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They took them seriously enough to give them all 3 keys to Washington DC this time around.  You had better start taking them seriously as well.  They may not act like they are taking you too seriously, but trust me, they are.  They are serious as a heart attack.  And will use almost any and all methods.
Click to expand...

It is why we have three branches of Government.  The right wing is obviously clueless and Causeless about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one I have seen has implied anything of the kind.   Every conservative I have seen simply sees the 2nd Amendment as a part of the US Constitution, and expects it to be treated as such.
> 
> 
> 
> only the right wing appeals to ignorance of their own propaganda and rhetoric, regarding the whole and entire concept of natural and individual rights, in our federal Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your reply has little or no content.
> 
> I have no appealed to ignorance at all.   I have stated the facts concerning the US Constitution and it's superiority over the state constitutions.  And I have stated that I have seen no conservatives imply that the 2nd amendment is a constitution unto itself.
> 
> The proof of my statements is that past attempts, by state constitutions, to take away constitutionally guaranteed rights have been ruled unconstitutional and defeated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  the right wing alleges, natural and individual rights are to be found, in the second clause of Article the Second.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do they?   Or do they allege that the 2nd amendment is one of their individual rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> to be well regulated?
Click to expand...


You claimed they allege that all their individual rights are found in the 2nd amendment.   I asked you a simple question.  What do you say we finish this line of thought before we move to another.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a part of the constitution and clearly a very important part as it is relegated the starting position of all the amendments. The first 10 are delegated to the superior rights that the PEOPLE have to it's government. But for some unknown reason you think that, for some unknown purpose the Founding Fathers snuck in an amendment, near the top of this list, that served a far different purpose than securing the Peoples rights.
> 
> Un friggin real the pretzel twisting you've gone through.
> 
> 
> 
> They are, merely Articles of Amendment, that is all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are, in fact, amendments to the US Constitution.  That makes them part of the US Constitutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.
> 
> Here is what our Second Amendment, amends:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They took them seriously enough to give them all 3 keys to Washington DC this time around.  You had better start taking them seriously as well.  They may not act like they are taking you too seriously, but trust me, they are.  They are serious as a heart attack.  And will use almost any and all methods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is why we have three branches of Government.  The right wing is obviously clueless and Causeless about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.
Click to expand...


You are the one shown to be clueless when you make baseless claims and refuse to provide backup or post vague nonsense which you refuse to clarify.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> only the right wing appeals to ignorance of their own propaganda and rhetoric, regarding the whole and entire concept of natural and individual rights, in our federal Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your reply has little or no content.
> 
> I have no appealed to ignorance at all.   I have stated the facts concerning the US Constitution and it's superiority over the state constitutions.  And I have stated that I have seen no conservatives imply that the 2nd amendment is a constitution unto itself.
> 
> The proof of my statements is that past attempts, by state constitutions, to take away constitutionally guaranteed rights have been ruled unconstitutional and defeated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  the right wing alleges, natural and individual rights are to be found, in the second clause of Article the Second.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do they?   Or do they allege that the 2nd amendment is one of their individual rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> to be well regulated?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You claimed they allege that all their individual rights are found in the 2nd amendment.   I asked you a simple question.  What do you say we finish this line of thought before we move to another.
Click to expand...

lol.  Why are we even having this argument?  There are No individual or natural rights in our Second Amendment; only civil rights.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your reply has little or no content.
> 
> I have no appealed to ignorance at all.   I have stated the facts concerning the US Constitution and it's superiority over the state constitutions.  And I have stated that I have seen no conservatives imply that the 2nd amendment is a constitution unto itself.
> 
> The proof of my statements is that past attempts, by state constitutions, to take away constitutionally guaranteed rights have been ruled unconstitutional and defeated.
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  the right wing alleges, natural and individual rights are to be found, in the second clause of Article the Second.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do they?   Or do they allege that the 2nd amendment is one of their individual rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> to be well regulated?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You claimed they allege that all their individual rights are found in the 2nd amendment.   I asked you a simple question.  What do you say we finish this line of thought before we move to another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Why are we even having this argument?  There are No individual or natural rights in our Second Amendment; only civil rights.
Click to expand...


Again, you refuse to answer a simple question.

And the 2nd Amendment is an individual right.  But just to be sure, are you saying that civil rights are not individual rights?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  the right wing alleges, natural and individual rights are to be found, in the second clause of Article the Second.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do they?   Or do they allege that the 2nd amendment is one of their individual rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> to be well regulated?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You claimed they allege that all their individual rights are found in the 2nd amendment.   I asked you a simple question.  What do you say we finish this line of thought before we move to another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Why are we even having this argument?  There are No individual or natural rights in our Second Amendment; only civil rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you refuse to answer a simple question.
> 
> And the 2nd Amendment is an individual right.  But just to be sure, are you saying that civil rights are not individual rights?
Click to expand...

It is a civil right not a natural right.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do they?   Or do they allege that the 2nd amendment is one of their individual rights?
> 
> 
> 
> to be well regulated?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You claimed they allege that all their individual rights are found in the 2nd amendment.   I asked you a simple question.  What do you say we finish this line of thought before we move to another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Why are we even having this argument?  There are No individual or natural rights in our Second Amendment; only civil rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you refuse to answer a simple question.
> 
> And the 2nd Amendment is an individual right.  But just to be sure, are you saying that civil rights are not individual rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is a civil right not a natural right.
Click to expand...


That is not what I asked.   You are pathological about not answering questions, aren't you?


----------



## Wry Catcher

westwall said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, traitor, the British uses their forces in country.  We don't.  When any country's leader loses the backing of it's Military (the military doesn't have to do anything, just sit down and do nothing) they are effectively out of power right at that very moment.  If our President were to try and use the Federal Troops to guard the border, the Military would be forced to do nothing.  At that point, the President had just as well resign as he's days away from an impeachment anyway.  But he can use State Forces to guard the border or assist in NON Police Action with the permission from the State Governors.  Even if the Federal Government is paying for it, it's under the authority of the States and does not go against the Posse Comitatus Act.  He can even use Federal equipment but no Federal Troops.   The System works and works well, traitor.
> 
> And we ain't Britain.  You want to go help Britain fail, by all means, go.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Dumbass, this was British Country.
> 
> Actually, if there is a traitor here, that would appear to be you and your actions to declare "the people" subjegated to the Government. A REAL AMERICAN understands it is the Government that is subject to the Constitution and the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, but I want to keep the Constitution and the US intact.  You are investing in an organization that wants to dismantle both using a back door in the Constitution.  Your Extreme Right Wing group is supported by none other than the Koch Brothers so it's well funded.  If successful, then there would be another Civil War and the Federal Government would have no choice but to use Federal Troops and supporting State Troops to quell the rioting.  Sorry, but you still won't have your "Revolution" since you won't be classed much higher than a riot.
> 
> So, I can live with my place in life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And your side is funded by Soros.  The kochs provide a commodity that the world uses, yet your hero made his billions by destroying public employee pension funds throughout Asia and busting the Bank of England.  He is far more anti America than the kochs are.  Me thinks you need to do some more research.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, my side is supported by the Tax Payers of the United States of America.  Neither the Soros nor the Kochs pay much in the form of Taxes in percentage of their income as the normal tax payer.  Are you admitting that you are in the employ of the Koch Brothers?  Not something I would admit to willingly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  The current attempt to destroy the 2nd Amendment, and remove our borders is led by soros and Co.  Trump was elected because the PEOPLE of this country don't want those policies.  The MSM is in lock step with him and his cronies which is why you rarely hear about the beneficial uses of firearms, and why the open borders groups get their message out, but no one else does.
Click to expand...


Three million more people voted for the other candidates than did for Trump, Trump won the electoral college by less than 1.5% in WI, MI & PA.  He did not carry 50% of the votes and has never once had an approval ratting higher than 40%.

Hence,  the argument posted by Westwall is once again an attempt to mislead the reader.


----------



## westwall

Wry Catcher said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Dumbass, this was British Country.
> 
> Actually, if there is a traitor here, that would appear to be you and your actions to declare "the people" subjegated to the Government. A REAL AMERICAN understands it is the Government that is subject to the Constitution and the People.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, but I want to keep the Constitution and the US intact.  You are investing in an organization that wants to dismantle both using a back door in the Constitution.  Your Extreme Right Wing group is supported by none other than the Koch Brothers so it's well funded.  If successful, then there would be another Civil War and the Federal Government would have no choice but to use Federal Troops and supporting State Troops to quell the rioting.  Sorry, but you still won't have your "Revolution" since you won't be classed much higher than a riot.
> 
> So, I can live with my place in life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And your side is funded by Soros.  The kochs provide a commodity that the world uses, yet your hero made his billions by destroying public employee pension funds throughout Asia and busting the Bank of England.  He is far more anti America than the kochs are.  Me thinks you need to do some more research.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, my side is supported by the Tax Payers of the United States of America.  Neither the Soros nor the Kochs pay much in the form of Taxes in percentage of their income as the normal tax payer.  Are you admitting that you are in the employ of the Koch Brothers?  Not something I would admit to willingly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  The current attempt to destroy the 2nd Amendment, and remove our borders is led by soros and Co.  Trump was elected because the PEOPLE of this country don't want those policies.  The MSM is in lock step with him and his cronies which is why you rarely hear about the beneficial uses of firearms, and why the open borders groups get their message out, but no one else does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Three million more people voted for the other candidates than did for Trump, Trump won the electoral college by less than 1.5% in WI, MI & PA.  He did not carry 50% of the votes and has never once had an approval ratting higher than 40%.
> 
> Hence,  the argument posted by Westwall is once again an attempt to mislead the reader.
Click to expand...









He won those tiny margins in historically Democrat strongholds.  The so called "blue wall".  So yes, the PEOPLE voted for trump.


----------



## Pop23

Daryl Hunt said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Bill of Rights, is not a Constitution unto itself; they don't have their own, legal Standing without our federal Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a part of the constitution and clearly a very important part as it is relegated the starting position of all the amendments. The first 10 are delegated to the superior rights that the PEOPLE have to it's government. But for some unknown reason you think that, for some unknown purpose the Founding Fathers snuck in an amendment, near the top of this list, that served a far different purpose than securing the Peoples rights.
> 
> Un friggin real the pretzel twisting you've gone through.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are, merely Articles of Amendment, that is all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are, in fact, amendments to the US Constitution.  That makes them part of the US Constitutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.
> 
> Here is what our Second Amendment, amends:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They took them seriously enough to give them all 3 keys to Washington DC this time around.  You had better start taking them seriously as well.  They may not act like they are taking you too seriously, but trust me, they are.  They are serious as a heart attack.  And will use almost any and all methods.
Click to expand...


----------



## Pop23

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one I have seen has implied anything of the kind.   Every conservative I have seen simply sees the 2nd Amendment as a part of the US Constitution, and expects it to be treated as such.
> 
> 
> 
> only the right wing appeals to ignorance of their own propaganda and rhetoric, regarding the whole and entire concept of natural and individual rights, in our federal Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your reply has little or no content.
> 
> I have no appealed to ignorance at all.   I have stated the facts concerning the US Constitution and it's superiority over the state constitutions.  And I have stated that I have seen no conservatives imply that the 2nd amendment is a constitution unto itself.
> 
> The proof of my statements is that past attempts, by state constitutions, to take away constitutionally guaranteed rights have been ruled unconstitutional and defeated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  the right wing alleges, natural and individual rights are to be found, in the second clause of Article the Second.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do they?   Or do they allege that the 2nd amendment is one of their individual rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> to be well regulated?
Click to expand...


Easily maintained and quickly called upon. Sounds about right? and your problem is?


----------



## Skull Pilot

Wry Catcher said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you follow current events?  Imagine small arms held by the Syrian People, against the 20th Century war planes dropping ordinance and chemical weapons.  Whose winning those engagements?
> 
> Then consider the effect if citizens could own the arms capable of engaging a 21st century military force in the US?   In my opinion, having served on a Destroyer in the late 60's, how that vessel would have done against the 21st Century Navy - not well and not for long.
> 
> Your reasoning is absurd.  Today the cost and size of our military, and the training, cannot be defeated or even slowed by a civilian force, and even if the arms of war were legal in the US.  Have you thought about how these arms might be used in small engagements against the civilian population (think criminal gangs).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The thought that a private citizen (Other than a well prepared Multi Billionaire with his own private military) can even last but a few minutes against the force of the US Military is absurd.   Luckily, there is a military tradition and law written into the Military UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) that is like the Military's version of the Constitution of the US, that bars this type of military action.  Not even a President can wildly expect the Military to follow that order and remain in power for very long.
> 
> The first half of the 2nd amendment has really been out of meaning since the National Guard Act of 1917.  I imagine that some Multi Billionaire could buy a small country and start building a force that might last a few days, months or more but no on the continental US.  Due to the various weapons laws (we can't even call them firearms anymore) they would be stopped long before they gain the weapons to have a ghost of  a chance.  Same goes for a state accumulating those weapons even though they can legally do so.
> 
> The Second amendment really didn't stay current much past 1850.  AFter that, Firearms started accelerate to the point where only Governments could afford them.  Much like the KIng and his Armory in the 12th century.
> 
> I have never demanded that we need to get rid of the 2nd amendment.  What I do suggest is we need to amend it to keep it current.  Make it more specific to today and less ambiguous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One citizen no
> 
> How abut a few million citizens?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about that ^^^:
> 
> Ever wonder how a few million would be fed, provided shelter, training, arms and enforced discipline? How would command and control work, are a million men under arms work well together without trained non commissioned officers for ever dozen or so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Spread them out over the entire country and compartmentalize
> 
> Idiot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Finally you sign a post with your nickname.  But I digress.
> 
> Who is the supreme commander, does he or she have the moral authority to be followed by millions?
> 
> Without the Command and Control structure how would food and arms be distributed to each compartment?  Armies require more than fighting men, the fighting men require food clothing and shelter.  Arms of course and at least first aid for the wounded need to be in effect before the first round is fired.
> 
> Of course a guerrilla war would pester a well-regulated military force; yet if Marshall Law was ordered, and Habeas Corpus were suspended, and each spy or vandal hung and left to be seen by his comrades  your fictional force will run home waving the white flag of surrender.
Click to expand...


Doesn't matter.

If the people felt the need to take up arms they would work it out

It ain't gonna happen but if it did the people would figure it out.

and we didn't surrender to the British did we?
The Afghans didn't surrender to the USSR or to us did they?

Belief goes a long way towards adaptation


----------



## Wry Catcher

WinterBorn said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The security of a free State to its well regulated militia, is a States' sovereign right.  It says so in our Second Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WTF?
> 
> In the part of the constitution (the bill of rights) that expresses the rights of the INDIVIDUAL, they decided to lump in that A STATE HAS THE RIGHT TO FORM A MILITIA?
> 
> That makes absolutely ZERO sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You make zero sense.  The actual words in our Second Amendment clearly declare what is Necessary to the security of a free State; it is mostly definitely not, the whole and entire concept of natural and individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is you who are confused.  So that the State CAN remain free, it is essential that the natural Right of defense be acknowledged.  Firearms ownership by the PEOPLE is how that is maintained.  Not the government, the PEOPLE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you follow current events?  Imagine small arms held by the Syrian People, against the 20th Century war planes dropping ordinance and chemical weapons.  Whose winning those engagements?
> 
> Then consider the effect if citizens could own the arms capable of engaging a 21st century military force in the US?   In my opinion, having served on a Destroyer in the late 60's, how that vessel would have done against the 21st Century Navy - not well and not for long.
> 
> Your reasoning is absurd.  Today the cost and size of our military, and the training, cannot be defeated or even slowed by a civilian force, and even if the arms of war were legal in the US.  Have you thought about how these arms might be used in small engagements against the civilian population (think criminal gangs).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I think an armed civilian population could fare reasonably well against our gov't.   First of all, you are correct that our military could decimate a population armed with small arms.  But would they be able to do so without decimating the entire civilian population?   Remember the uproar when our military shot up unarmed civilians in Iraq?   Now imagine that being US citizens.  The armed population would blend in with the rest of the population.   It would not be a matter of defeating the US military, but doing enough damage to force them to engage and then take enough damage to force public opinion into the equation.
Click to expand...


What you describe is a mob.  And once a fire fight starts, chaos would reign.  The mob would likely be fought with fire fighter tactics, an air drop and containment.  With no supple lines, short order would lead to surrender or a Kamikaze charge leading to a slaughter of your imagined soldier citizens.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> to be well regulated?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You claimed they allege that all their individual rights are found in the 2nd amendment.   I asked you a simple question.  What do you say we finish this line of thought before we move to another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Why are we even having this argument?  There are No individual or natural rights in our Second Amendment; only civil rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you refuse to answer a simple question.
> 
> And the 2nd Amendment is an individual right.  But just to be sure, are you saying that civil rights are not individual rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is a civil right not a natural right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not what I asked.   You are pathological about not answering questions, aren't you?
Click to expand...

You have, nothing but diversion; why should I waste my time, again.  I just gave you the answer.  You don't get to ignore it, and claim I am the one ignoring the issue.


----------



## danielpalos

Pop23 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> only the right wing appeals to ignorance of their own propaganda and rhetoric, regarding the whole and entire concept of natural and individual rights, in our federal Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your reply has little or no content.
> 
> I have no appealed to ignorance at all.   I have stated the facts concerning the US Constitution and it's superiority over the state constitutions.  And I have stated that I have seen no conservatives imply that the 2nd amendment is a constitution unto itself.
> 
> The proof of my statements is that past attempts, by state constitutions, to take away constitutionally guaranteed rights have been ruled unconstitutional and defeated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  the right wing alleges, natural and individual rights are to be found, in the second clause of Article the Second.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do they?   Or do they allege that the 2nd amendment is one of their individual rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> to be well regulated?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Easily maintained and quickly called upon. Sounds about right? and your problem is?
Click to expand...

your appeal to ignorance of the term, well regulated, in our federal Constitution.  the right wing does it on purpose; we dare not call it spam, while in the minority.


----------



## Wry Catcher

westwall said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, but I want to keep the Constitution and the US intact.  You are investing in an organization that wants to dismantle both using a back door in the Constitution.  Your Extreme Right Wing group is supported by none other than the Koch Brothers so it's well funded.  If successful, then there would be another Civil War and the Federal Government would have no choice but to use Federal Troops and supporting State Troops to quell the rioting.  Sorry, but you still won't have your "Revolution" since you won't be classed much higher than a riot.
> 
> So, I can live with my place in life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And your side is funded by Soros.  The kochs provide a commodity that the world uses, yet your hero made his billions by destroying public employee pension funds throughout Asia and busting the Bank of England.  He is far more anti America than the kochs are.  Me thinks you need to do some more research.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, my side is supported by the Tax Payers of the United States of America.  Neither the Soros nor the Kochs pay much in the form of Taxes in percentage of their income as the normal tax payer.  Are you admitting that you are in the employ of the Koch Brothers?  Not something I would admit to willingly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  The current attempt to destroy the 2nd Amendment, and remove our borders is led by soros and Co.  Trump was elected because the PEOPLE of this country don't want those policies.  The MSM is in lock step with him and his cronies which is why you rarely hear about the beneficial uses of firearms, and why the open borders groups get their message out, but no one else does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Three million more people voted for the other candidates than did for Trump, Trump won the electoral college by less than 1.5% in WI, MI & PA.  He did not carry 50% of the votes and has never once had an approval ratting higher than 40%.
> 
> Hence,  the argument posted by Westwall is once again an attempt to mislead the reader.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He won those tiny margins in historically Democrat strongholds.  The so called "blue wall".  So yes, the PEOPLE voted for trump.
Click to expand...


BULLSHIT


----------



## Wry Catcher

Skull Pilot said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thought that a private citizen (Other than a well prepared Multi Billionaire with his own private military) can even last but a few minutes against the force of the US Military is absurd.   Luckily, there is a military tradition and law written into the Military UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) that is like the Military's version of the Constitution of the US, that bars this type of military action.  Not even a President can wildly expect the Military to follow that order and remain in power for very long.
> 
> The first half of the 2nd amendment has really been out of meaning since the National Guard Act of 1917.  I imagine that some Multi Billionaire could buy a small country and start building a force that might last a few days, months or more but no on the continental US.  Due to the various weapons laws (we can't even call them firearms anymore) they would be stopped long before they gain the weapons to have a ghost of  a chance.  Same goes for a state accumulating those weapons even though they can legally do so.
> 
> The Second amendment really didn't stay current much past 1850.  AFter that, Firearms started accelerate to the point where only Governments could afford them.  Much like the KIng and his Armory in the 12th century.
> 
> I have never demanded that we need to get rid of the 2nd amendment.  What I do suggest is we need to amend it to keep it current.  Make it more specific to today and less ambiguous.
> 
> 
> 
> One citizen no
> 
> How abut a few million citizens?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about that ^^^:
> 
> Ever wonder how a few million would be fed, provided shelter, training, arms and enforced discipline? How would command and control work, are a million men under arms work well together without trained non commissioned officers for ever dozen or so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Spread them out over the entire country and compartmentalize
> 
> Idiot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Finally you sign a post with your nickname.  But I digress.
> 
> Who is the supreme commander, does he or she have the moral authority to be followed by millions?
> 
> Without the Command and Control structure how would food and arms be distributed to each compartment?  Armies require more than fighting men, the fighting men require food clothing and shelter.  Arms of course and at least first aid for the wounded need to be in effect before the first round is fired.
> 
> Of course a guerrilla war would pester a well-regulated military force; yet if Marshall Law was ordered, and Habeas Corpus were suspended, and each spy or vandal hung and left to be seen by his comrades  your fictional force will run home waving the white flag of surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter.
> 
> If the people felt the need to take up arms they would work it out
> 
> It ain't gonna happen but if it did the people would figure it out.
> 
> and we didn't surrender to the British did we?
> The Afghans didn't surrender to the USSR or to us did they?
> 
> Belief goes a long way towards adaptation
Click to expand...


David Koresh and the Branch Davidians are an example of when people take up arms, as well as Donald DeFreeze and the Symbionese Liberation Army.  Way before these events the Whisky Rebellion and,Shay's Rebellion, were also small matters, mostly footnotes to our history.


----------



## Pop23

danielpalos said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your reply has little or no content.
> 
> I have no appealed to ignorance at all.   I have stated the facts concerning the US Constitution and it's superiority over the state constitutions.  And I have stated that I have seen no conservatives imply that the 2nd amendment is a constitution unto itself.
> 
> The proof of my statements is that past attempts, by state constitutions, to take away constitutionally guaranteed rights have been ruled unconstitutional and defeated.
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  the right wing alleges, natural and individual rights are to be found, in the second clause of Article the Second.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do they?   Or do they allege that the 2nd amendment is one of their individual rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> to be well regulated?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Easily maintained and quickly called upon. Sounds about right? and your problem is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your appeal to ignorance of the term, well regulated, in our federal Constitution.  the right wing does it on purpose; we dare not call it spam, while in the minority.
Click to expand...


You really think they spoke the same in 1776 as they do today?

Groovy dude, nice story bro


----------



## Pop23

Wry Catcher said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> One citizen no
> 
> How abut a few million citizens?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about that ^^^:
> 
> Ever wonder how a few million would be fed, provided shelter, training, arms and enforced discipline? How would command and control work, are a million men under arms work well together without trained non commissioned officers for ever dozen or so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Spread them out over the entire country and compartmentalize
> 
> Idiot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Finally you sign a post with your nickname.  But I digress.
> 
> Who is the supreme commander, does he or she have the moral authority to be followed by millions?
> 
> Without the Command and Control structure how would food and arms be distributed to each compartment?  Armies require more than fighting men, the fighting men require food clothing and shelter.  Arms of course and at least first aid for the wounded need to be in effect before the first round is fired.
> 
> Of course a guerrilla war would pester a well-regulated military force; yet if Marshall Law was ordered, and Habeas Corpus were suspended, and each spy or vandal hung and left to be seen by his comrades  your fictional force will run home waving the white flag of surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter.
> 
> If the people felt the need to take up arms they would work it out
> 
> It ain't gonna happen but if it did the people would figure it out.
> 
> and we didn't surrender to the British did we?
> The Afghans didn't surrender to the USSR or to us did they?
> 
> Belief goes a long way towards adaptation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> David Koresh and the Branch Davidians are an example of when people take up arms, as well as Donald DeFreeze and the Symbionese Liberation Army.  Way before these events the Whisky Rebellion and,Shay's Rebellion, were also small matters, mostly footnotes to our history.
Click to expand...


You serious bro?


----------



## westwall

Wry Catcher said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And your side is funded by Soros.  The kochs provide a commodity that the world uses, yet your hero made his billions by destroying public employee pension funds throughout Asia and busting the Bank of England.  He is far more anti America than the kochs are.  Me thinks you need to do some more research.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, my side is supported by the Tax Payers of the United States of America.  Neither the Soros nor the Kochs pay much in the form of Taxes in percentage of their income as the normal tax payer.  Are you admitting that you are in the employ of the Koch Brothers?  Not something I would admit to willingly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  The current attempt to destroy the 2nd Amendment, and remove our borders is led by soros and Co.  Trump was elected because the PEOPLE of this country don't want those policies.  The MSM is in lock step with him and his cronies which is why you rarely hear about the beneficial uses of firearms, and why the open borders groups get their message out, but no one else does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Three million more people voted for the other candidates than did for Trump, Trump won the electoral college by less than 1.5% in WI, MI & PA.  He did not carry 50% of the votes and has never once had an approval ratting higher than 40%.
> 
> Hence,  the argument posted by Westwall is once again an attempt to mislead the reader.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He won those tiny margins in historically Democrat strongholds.  The so called "blue wall".  So yes, the PEOPLE voted for trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BULLSHIT
Click to expand...







Truly?  That is the best response you can come up with?  No wonder you're a government worker.  The fact remains that trump broke the blue wall.  And even though it was by a narrow margin he DID it.  Face it, your hero, the shrialry was a crap candidate.


----------



## danielpalos

Pop23 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  the right wing alleges, natural and individual rights are to be found, in the second clause of Article the Second.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do they?   Or do they allege that the 2nd amendment is one of their individual rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> to be well regulated?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Easily maintained and quickly called upon. Sounds about right? and your problem is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your appeal to ignorance of the term, well regulated, in our federal Constitution.  the right wing does it on purpose; we dare not call it spam, while in the minority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really think they spoke the same in 1776 as they do today?
> 
> Groovy dude, nice story bro
Click to expand...

Nothing but appeals to ignorance of our supreme law of the land by the clueless and Causeless, right wing; coincidence or conspiracy?

the term, militia is also in the dictionary.


----------



## Markle

WinterBorn said:


> No one I have seen has implied anything of the kind. Every conservative I have seen simply sees the 2nd Amendment as a part of the US Constitution, and expects it to be treated as such.



As an amendment, what makes it NOT part of the United States Constitution?


----------



## Pop23

danielpalos said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do they?   Or do they allege that the 2nd amendment is one of their individual rights?
> 
> 
> 
> to be well regulated?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Easily maintained and quickly called upon. Sounds about right? and your problem is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your appeal to ignorance of the term, well regulated, in our federal Constitution.  the right wing does it on purpose; we dare not call it spam, while in the minority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really think they spoke the same in 1776 as they do today?
> 
> Groovy dude, nice story bro
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing but appeals to ignorance of our supreme law of the land by the clueless and Causeless, right wing; coincidence or conspiracy?
> 
> the term, militia is also in the dictionary.
Click to expand...


So what does your 1776 dictionary say?


----------



## Markle

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have to understand how delusional Daniel actually is.  He insists that out individual rights come from the state constitutions, and that the US Constitution is largely powerless.
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  You don't know what you are talking about.  Only the right wing appeals to ignorance of their own propaganda and rhetoric concerning natural and individual rights being in our federal Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand quite well.
> 
> Between the US Constitution and any state constitutions, you only have to look at which one is the standard and which one has to follow that standard.
> 
> The US Constitution is the standard and the law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yet, the right wing claims, the second clause of the second article, is what really really matters, regardless of what the rest of our Constitution says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who has claimed this?   Show me an example.    (like THAT will happen)
> 
> And what does the rest of our constitution say that contradicts the 2nd amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  only the right wing is that clueless and that causeless, in the public domain.
Click to expand...


----------



## Markle

Wry Catcher said:


> Three million more people voted for the other candidates than did for Trump, Trump won the electoral college by less than 1.5% in WI, MI & PA. He did not carry 50% of the votes and has never once had an approval ratting higher than 40%.
> 
> Hence, the argument posted by Westwall is once again an attempt to mislead the reader.








Wry  Catcher,  Why lie?  Is forty-eight percent less than forty percent?  When did that change?


----------



## Markle

danielpalos said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your reply has little or no content.
> 
> I have no appealed to ignorance at all.   I have stated the facts concerning the US Constitution and it's superiority over the state constitutions.  And I have stated that I have seen no conservatives imply that the 2nd amendment is a constitution unto itself.
> 
> The proof of my statements is that past attempts, by state constitutions, to take away constitutionally guaranteed rights have been ruled unconstitutional and defeated.
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  the right wing alleges, natural and individual rights are to be found, in the second clause of Article the Second.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do they?   Or do they allege that the 2nd amendment is one of their individual rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> to be well regulated?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Easily maintained and quickly called upon. Sounds about right? and your problem is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your appeal to ignorance of the term, well regulated, in our federal Constitution.  the right wing does it on purpose; we dare not call it spam, while in the minority.
Click to expand...


I take it you skipped grammar and punctuation when in elementary school.  For your review, I am including the actual Second Amendment.  *Hint, as always, punctuation does matter!




*


----------



## danielpalos

Pop23 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> to be well regulated?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Easily maintained and quickly called upon. Sounds about right? and your problem is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your appeal to ignorance of the term, well regulated, in our federal Constitution.  the right wing does it on purpose; we dare not call it spam, while in the minority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really think they spoke the same in 1776 as they do today?
> 
> Groovy dude, nice story bro
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing but appeals to ignorance of our supreme law of the land by the clueless and Causeless, right wing; coincidence or conspiracy?
> 
> the term, militia is also in the dictionary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what does your 1776 dictionary say?
Click to expand...

militia: all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
*— George Mason*_, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788_


----------



## danielpalos

Markle said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  You don't know what you are talking about.  Only the right wing appeals to ignorance of their own propaganda and rhetoric concerning natural and individual rights being in our federal Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand quite well.
> 
> Between the US Constitution and any state constitutions, you only have to look at which one is the standard and which one has to follow that standard.
> 
> The US Constitution is the standard and the law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yet, the right wing claims, the second clause of the second article, is what really really matters, regardless of what the rest of our Constitution says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who has claimed this?   Show me an example.    (like THAT will happen)
> 
> And what does the rest of our constitution say that contradicts the 2nd amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  only the right wing is that clueless and that causeless, in the public domain.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

those who have, nothing but fallacy, get to go first.


----------



## danielpalos

Markle said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  the right wing alleges, natural and individual rights are to be found, in the second clause of Article the Second.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do they?   Or do they allege that the 2nd amendment is one of their individual rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> to be well regulated?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Easily maintained and quickly called upon. Sounds about right? and your problem is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your appeal to ignorance of the term, well regulated, in our federal Constitution.  the right wing does it on purpose; we dare not call it spam, while in the minority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I take it you skipped grammar and punctuation when in elementary school.  For your review, I am including the actual Second Amendment.  *Hint, as always, punctuation does matter!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
Click to expand...

you do not know what you are talking about, right winger; coincidence or conspiracy?


----------



## Pop23

danielpalos said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Easily maintained and quickly called upon. Sounds about right? and your problem is?
> 
> 
> 
> your appeal to ignorance of the term, well regulated, in our federal Constitution.  the right wing does it on purpose; we dare not call it spam, while in the minority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really think they spoke the same in 1776 as they do today?
> 
> Groovy dude, nice story bro
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing but appeals to ignorance of our supreme law of the land by the clueless and Causeless, right wing; coincidence or conspiracy?
> 
> the term, militia is also in the dictionary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what does your 1776 dictionary say?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> militia: all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> *— George Mason*_, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788_
Click to expand...


Thanks for explaining what comes before the second comma. 

Chace your tail much?


----------



## danielpalos

Pop23 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> your appeal to ignorance of the term, well regulated, in our federal Constitution.  the right wing does it on purpose; we dare not call it spam, while in the minority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really think they spoke the same in 1776 as they do today?
> 
> Groovy dude, nice story bro
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing but appeals to ignorance of our supreme law of the land by the clueless and Causeless, right wing; coincidence or conspiracy?
> 
> the term, militia is also in the dictionary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what does your 1776 dictionary say?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> militia: all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> *— George Mason*_, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for explaining what comes before the second comma.
> 
> Chace your tail much?
Click to expand...

Punctuation means Nothing. 

militia: all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.

the People are the Militia; You are Either, well regulated or unorganized.  

Our Second Amendment is very Specific.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

Markle said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  the right wing alleges, natural and individual rights are to be found, in the second clause of Article the Second.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do they?   Or do they allege that the 2nd amendment is one of their individual rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> to be well regulated?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Easily maintained and quickly called upon. Sounds about right? and your problem is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your appeal to ignorance of the term, well regulated, in our federal Constitution.  the right wing does it on purpose; we dare not call it spam, while in the minority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I take it you skipped grammar and punctuation when in elementary school.  For your review, I am including the actual Second Amendment.  *Hint, as always, punctuation does matter!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
Click to expand...


Thank you.  So what's the problem?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You claimed they allege that all their individual rights are found in the 2nd amendment.   I asked you a simple question.  What do you say we finish this line of thought before we move to another.
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  Why are we even having this argument?  There are No individual or natural rights in our Second Amendment; only civil rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you refuse to answer a simple question.
> 
> And the 2nd Amendment is an individual right.  But just to be sure, are you saying that civil rights are not individual rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is a civil right not a natural right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not what I asked.   You are pathological about not answering questions, aren't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have, nothing but diversion; why should I waste my time, again.  I just gave you the answer.  You don't get to ignore it, and claim I am the one ignoring the issue.
Click to expand...


No, I asked you if a civil right is an individual right.  And you refused to answer.   Like you have refused to answer almost all my questions.

A "natural right" is an outdated notion.   It goes with the assumption that "natural" is always better and always right.  But many things are "natural" and still wrong in human society.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really think they spoke the same in 1776 as they do today?
> 
> Groovy dude, nice story bro
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing but appeals to ignorance of our supreme law of the land by the clueless and Causeless, right wing; coincidence or conspiracy?
> 
> the term, militia is also in the dictionary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what does your 1776 dictionary say?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> militia: all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> *— George Mason*_, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for explaining what comes before the second comma.
> 
> Chace your tail much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Punctuation means Nothing.
> 
> militia: all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.
> 
> the People are the Militia; You are Either, well regulated or unorganized.
> 
> Our Second Amendment is very Specific.
Click to expand...


And still you ignore the facts of the militia that existed during the time the US Constitution was written.  I have suggested you read up on the "citizen soldier", but you have apparently refused to do so.    During the time when the document was written, citizens maintained arms, and were called up in time of need.  It was to supplement the military, without the need to have a huge standing army.

And punctuation does mean something.  The second clause stands alone, if need be.


----------



## WinterBorn

Markle said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one I have seen has implied anything of the kind. Every conservative I have seen simply sees the 2nd Amendment as a part of the US Constitution, and expects it to be treated as such.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As an amendment, what makes it NOT part of the United States Constitution?
Click to expand...


I have no idea.  YOu will have to ask Daniel Palos or Daryl Hunt.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Easily maintained and quickly called upon. Sounds about right? and your problem is?
> 
> 
> 
> your appeal to ignorance of the term, well regulated, in our federal Constitution.  the right wing does it on purpose; we dare not call it spam, while in the minority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really think they spoke the same in 1776 as they do today?
> 
> Groovy dude, nice story bro
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing but appeals to ignorance of our supreme law of the land by the clueless and Causeless, right wing; coincidence or conspiracy?
> 
> the term, militia is also in the dictionary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what does your 1776 dictionary say?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> militia: all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> *— George Mason*_, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788_
Click to expand...


Yes, those are the people expected to keep and maintain arms so that they may be ready if called upon.  Militia is not the same as a standing army.  It was especially not so in the 1770s.


----------



## Wry Catcher

westwall said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, my side is supported by the Tax Payers of the United States of America.  Neither the Soros nor the Kochs pay much in the form of Taxes in percentage of their income as the normal tax payer.  Are you admitting that you are in the employ of the Koch Brothers?  Not something I would admit to willingly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  The current attempt to destroy the 2nd Amendment, and remove our borders is led by soros and Co.  Trump was elected because the PEOPLE of this country don't want those policies.  The MSM is in lock step with him and his cronies which is why you rarely hear about the beneficial uses of firearms, and why the open borders groups get their message out, but no one else does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Three million more people voted for the other candidates than did for Trump, Trump won the electoral college by less than 1.5% in WI, MI & PA.  He did not carry 50% of the votes and has never once had an approval ratting higher than 40%.
> 
> Hence,  the argument posted by Westwall is once again an attempt to mislead the reader.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He won those tiny margins in historically Democrat strongholds.  The so called "blue wall".  So yes, the PEOPLE voted for trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BULLSHIT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truly?  That is the best response you can come up with?  No wonder you're a government worker.  The fact remains that trump broke the blue wall.  And even though it was by a narrow margin he DID it.  Face it, your hero, the shrialry was a crap candidate.
Click to expand...


Calling BULLSHIT was very appropriate, especially in you case where you express your opinion, or your wish, as if it is true.  Post the evidence where the major urban areas and the regions around a University supported Trump.  Or for once tell the truth and admit your post was bullshit.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  Why are we even having this argument?  There are No individual or natural rights in our Second Amendment; only civil rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you refuse to answer a simple question.
> 
> And the 2nd Amendment is an individual right.  But just to be sure, are you saying that civil rights are not individual rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is a civil right not a natural right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not what I asked.   You are pathological about not answering questions, aren't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have, nothing but diversion; why should I waste my time, again.  I just gave you the answer.  You don't get to ignore it, and claim I am the one ignoring the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I asked you if a civil right is an individual right.  And you refused to answer.   Like you have refused to answer almost all my questions.
> 
> A "natural right" is an outdated notion.   It goes with the assumption that "natural" is always better and always right.  But many things are "natural" and still wrong in human society.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't.  Civil rights apply to individuals; but, they are not, Individual rights, they are civil rights.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing but appeals to ignorance of our supreme law of the land by the clueless and Causeless, right wing; coincidence or conspiracy?
> 
> the term, militia is also in the dictionary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what does your 1776 dictionary say?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> militia: all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> *— George Mason*_, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for explaining what comes before the second comma.
> 
> Chace your tail much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Punctuation means Nothing.
> 
> militia: all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.
> 
> the People are the Militia; You are Either, well regulated or unorganized.
> 
> Our Second Amendment is very Specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And still you ignore the facts of the militia that existed during the time the US Constitution was written.  I have suggested you read up on the "citizen soldier", but you have apparently refused to do so.    During the time when the document was written, citizens maintained arms, and were called up in time of need.  It was to supplement the military, without the need to have a huge standing army.
> 
> And punctuation does mean something.  The second clause stands alone, if need be.
Click to expand...

The People are the Militia; You are Either, well regulated or unorganized. 

Our Second Amendment is very Specific.

And, it is not about individual rights.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> your appeal to ignorance of the term, well regulated, in our federal Constitution.  the right wing does it on purpose; we dare not call it spam, while in the minority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really think they spoke the same in 1776 as they do today?
> 
> Groovy dude, nice story bro
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing but appeals to ignorance of our supreme law of the land by the clueless and Causeless, right wing; coincidence or conspiracy?
> 
> the term, militia is also in the dictionary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what does your 1776 dictionary say?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> militia: all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> *— George Mason*_, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, those are the people expected to keep and maintain arms so that they may be ready if called upon.  Militia is not the same as a standing army.  It was especially not so in the 1770s.
Click to expand...

militia: all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.


----------



## Markle

danielpalos said:


> *
> Punctuation means Nothing. *
> 
> militia: all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.
> 
> the People are the Militia; You are Either, well regulated or unorganized.
> 
> Our Second Amendment is very Specific.


----------



## danielpalos

Markle said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Punctuation means Nothing. *
> 
> militia: all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.
> 
> the People are the Militia; You are Either, well regulated or unorganized.
> 
> Our Second Amendment is very Specific.
Click to expand...

You need a valid argument, or you are simply, full of fallacy.

militia: all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.

the People are the Militia; You are Either, well regulated or unorganized.

Our Second Amendment is very Specific.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

westwall said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, my side is supported by the Tax Payers of the United States of America.  Neither the Soros nor the Kochs pay much in the form of Taxes in percentage of their income as the normal tax payer.  Are you admitting that you are in the employ of the Koch Brothers?  Not something I would admit to willingly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  The current attempt to destroy the 2nd Amendment, and remove our borders is led by soros and Co.  Trump was elected because the PEOPLE of this country don't want those policies.  The MSM is in lock step with him and his cronies which is why you rarely hear about the beneficial uses of firearms, and why the open borders groups get their message out, but no one else does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Three million more people voted for the other candidates than did for Trump, Trump won the electoral college by less than 1.5% in WI, MI & PA.  He did not carry 50% of the votes and has never once had an approval ratting higher than 40%.
> 
> Hence,  the argument posted by Westwall is once again an attempt to mislead the reader.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He won those tiny margins in historically Democrat strongholds.  The so called "blue wall".  So yes, the PEOPLE voted for trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BULLSHIT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truly?  That is the best response you can come up with?  No wonder you're a government worker.  The fact remains that trump broke the blue wall.  And even though it was by a narrow margin he DID it.  Face it, your hero, the shrialry was a crap candidate.
Click to expand...


I have to disagree.  The Blue Wall broke itself.  They just as well as used a claymore on it.  ISIS couldn't have blown it up any better.  They search far and wide to find a candidate that was hated more than Trump.  And that took some doing.  They had some pretty good choices but the "Powers in Be" wouldn't consider them and I don't mean Bernie who also would have probably lost.  I hope both parties get some serious phsyco help by 2020 and actually run decent candidates.  Wow, what a refreshing thought.  Actually having a choice between two qualified people.  It's been a very, very long time on that one.  Trump also broke the Red Wall while he was at it.


----------



## westwall

Daryl Hunt said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  The current attempt to destroy the 2nd Amendment, and remove our borders is led by soros and Co.  Trump was elected because the PEOPLE of this country don't want those policies.  The MSM is in lock step with him and his cronies which is why you rarely hear about the beneficial uses of firearms, and why the open borders groups get their message out, but no one else does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Three million more people voted for the other candidates than did for Trump, Trump won the electoral college by less than 1.5% in WI, MI & PA.  He did not carry 50% of the votes and has never once had an approval ratting higher than 40%.
> 
> Hence,  the argument posted by Westwall is once again an attempt to mislead the reader.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He won those tiny margins in historically Democrat strongholds.  The so called "blue wall".  So yes, the PEOPLE voted for trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BULLSHIT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truly?  That is the best response you can come up with?  No wonder you're a government worker.  The fact remains that trump broke the blue wall.  And even though it was by a narrow margin he DID it.  Face it, your hero, the shrialry was a crap candidate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have to disagree.  The Blue Wall broke itself.  They just as well as used a claymore on it.  ISIS couldn't have blown it up any better.  They search far and wide to find a candidate that was hated more than Trump.  And that took some doing.  They had some pretty good choices but the "Powers in Be" wouldn't consider them and I don't mean Bernie who also would have probably lost.  I hope both parties get some serious phsyco help by 2020 and actually run decent candidates.  Wow, what a refreshing thought.  Actually having a choice between two qualified people.  It's been a very, very long time on that one.  Trump also broke the Red Wall while he was at it.
Click to expand...






I am in partial agreement with you.  I differ on Bernie.  Had he been the candidate i feel pretty certain he would have won.  I do agree with you that hillary is the worst candidate ever run.  That is clear.  The one thing that this election proved beyond doubt is that the political process is corrupt.  On the Dem side it is probably not salvageable without serious criminal charges being filed.  Trump managed to break the stranglehold that the RNC had over the repubs, but only barely, and the repub establishment hates him, and will continue to try and get rid of him.


----------



## Darkwind

Daryl Hunt said:


> I won't look at today.  I will look at the time around 1790.
> 
> *Militia Act of 1792*
> _Every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.
> _
> First we need to look at who was a Citizen in 1790s.  In the 1790s, ALL Blacks even free Blacks were prohibited from owning and carrying firearms.  All People even whites that would not swear allegiance to the newly formed United States were prohibited from owning or carrying fire arms.  Women were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms.  Bonded Slaves, even whites were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms of any kind.  It all pretty much boiled down that a Citizen was a Free White Male Land Owner deemed to be in good standing with the Existing Government both Stated and Federal Governments.  It's been estimated that only about 8% of the population from that time met the full requirement to own, possess and carry firearms legally.  Remember, more than half of the population of that time either supported the Crown or leaned heavily in that direction.  The Newly Formed Colonist Government did exactly what the British Government tried to do themselves.
> 
> There were two rebellions that made the Militia Act of 1792 to be written and adopted.  The Shays Rebellion of 1786-1787 and the Whiskey Rebellion 1791-1794.  While neither amounted to much, the founding fathers were scared to death that something else might come up that might endanger the newly formed Government so they adopted the 2nd Amendment as it was written since there was no Standing Army to prevent any decent resurrection from becoming successful.    It was left up to each state individually to provide the militias to prevent it from happening.  As long as the states agreed and didn't go to war with each other.
> 
> Using the original definition, if you don't own your House, Farm or Business and you don't completely and blindly support our current Government then are not a Citizen in Good Standings and will not be afforded the right to own, posses or carry any form of Firearms.  Oh, and you must be a Free White Male as well.


Not that I expect you would read it.

The Second Amendment as an Expression of First Principles


----------



## Muhammed

Daryl Hunt said:


> I won't look at today.  I will look at the time around 1790.
> 
> *Militia Act of 1792*
> _Every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.
> _
> First we need to look at who was a Citizen in 1790s.  In the 1790s, ALL Blacks even free Blacks were prohibited from owning and carrying firearms.  All People even whites that would not swear allegiance to the newly formed United States were prohibited from owning or carrying fire arms.  Women were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms.  Bonded Slaves, even whites were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms of any kind.  It all pretty much boiled down that a Citizen was a Free White Male Land Owner deemed to be in good standing with the Existing Government both Stated and Federal Governments.  It's been estimated that only about 8% of the population from that time met the full requirement to own, possess and carry firearms legally.  Remember, more than half of the population of that time either supported the Crown or leaned heavily in that direction.  The Newly Formed Colonist Government did exactly what the British Government tried to do themselves.
> 
> There were two rebellions that made the Militia Act of 1792 to be written and adopted.  The Shays Rebellion of 1786-1787 and the Whiskey Rebellion 1791-1794.  While neither amounted to much, the founding fathers were scared to death that something else might come up that might endanger the newly formed Government so they adopted the 2nd Amendment as it was written since there was no Standing Army to prevent any decent resurrection from becoming successful.    It was left up to each state individually to provide the militias to prevent it from happening.  As long as the states agreed and didn't go to war with each other.
> 
> Using the original definition, if you don't own your House, Farm or Business and you don't completely and blindly support our current Government then are not a Citizen in Good Standings and will not be afforded the right to own, posses or carry any form of Firearms.  Oh, and you must be a Free White Male as well.


The 2nd amendment doesn't say any of that, jackass.


----------



## WinterBorn

Daryl Hunt said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  The current attempt to destroy the 2nd Amendment, and remove our borders is led by soros and Co.  Trump was elected because the PEOPLE of this country don't want those policies.  The MSM is in lock step with him and his cronies which is why you rarely hear about the beneficial uses of firearms, and why the open borders groups get their message out, but no one else does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Three million more people voted for the other candidates than did for Trump, Trump won the electoral college by less than 1.5% in WI, MI & PA.  He did not carry 50% of the votes and has never once had an approval ratting higher than 40%.
> 
> Hence,  the argument posted by Westwall is once again an attempt to mislead the reader.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He won those tiny margins in historically Democrat strongholds.  The so called "blue wall".  So yes, the PEOPLE voted for trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BULLSHIT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truly?  That is the best response you can come up with?  No wonder you're a government worker.  The fact remains that trump broke the blue wall.  And even though it was by a narrow margin he DID it.  Face it, your hero, the shrialry was a crap candidate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have to disagree.  The Blue Wall broke itself.  They just as well as used a claymore on it.  ISIS couldn't have blown it up any better.  They search far and wide to find a candidate that was hated more than Trump.  And that took some doing.  They had some pretty good choices but the "Powers in Be" wouldn't consider them and I don't mean Bernie who also would have probably lost.  I hope both parties get some serious phsyco help by 2020 and actually run decent candidates.  Wow, what a refreshing thought.  Actually having a choice between two qualified people.  It's been a very, very long time on that one.  Trump also broke the Red Wall while he was at it.
Click to expand...


I have to disagree on whether Bernie would have lost.  While many of the Trumpsters crow about him winning, I think many the votes he received were votes against Hillary more than they were votes for him.


----------



## danielpalos

Darkwind said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I won't look at today.  I will look at the time around 1790.
> 
> *Militia Act of 1792*
> _Every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.
> _
> First we need to look at who was a Citizen in 1790s.  In the 1790s, ALL Blacks even free Blacks were prohibited from owning and carrying firearms.  All People even whites that would not swear allegiance to the newly formed United States were prohibited from owning or carrying fire arms.  Women were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms.  Bonded Slaves, even whites were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms of any kind.  It all pretty much boiled down that a Citizen was a Free White Male Land Owner deemed to be in good standing with the Existing Government both Stated and Federal Governments.  It's been estimated that only about 8% of the population from that time met the full requirement to own, possess and carry firearms legally.  Remember, more than half of the population of that time either supported the Crown or leaned heavily in that direction.  The Newly Formed Colonist Government did exactly what the British Government tried to do themselves.
> 
> There were two rebellions that made the Militia Act of 1792 to be written and adopted.  The Shays Rebellion of 1786-1787 and the Whiskey Rebellion 1791-1794.  While neither amounted to much, the founding fathers were scared to death that something else might come up that might endanger the newly formed Government so they adopted the 2nd Amendment as it was written since there was no Standing Army to prevent any decent resurrection from becoming successful.    It was left up to each state individually to provide the militias to prevent it from happening.  As long as the states agreed and didn't go to war with each other.
> 
> Using the original definition, if you don't own your House, Farm or Business and you don't completely and blindly support our current Government then are not a Citizen in Good Standings and will not be afforded the right to own, posses or carry any form of Firearms.  Oh, and you must be a Free White Male as well.
> 
> 
> 
> Not that I expect you would read it.
> 
> The Second Amendment as an Expression of First Principles
Click to expand...




> The Second Amendment is unique among the amendments in the Bill of Rights, in that it contains a preface explaining the reason for the right protected: Militias are necessary for the security of a free state. We cannot read the words “free State” here as a reference to the several states that make up the Union. The frequent use of the phrase “free State” in the founding era makes it abundantly clear that it means a non-tyrannical or non-despotic state. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in the case of _District of Columbia v. Heller_ (2008), rightly remarked that the term and its “close variations” were “terms of art in 18th-century political discourse, meaning a free country or free polity.”



I agree to disagree, if we have to quibble.  A free State of our Union, is one free from federal interference in its internal affairs.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Wry Catcher said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> One citizen no
> 
> How abut a few million citizens?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about that ^^^:
> 
> Ever wonder how a few million would be fed, provided shelter, training, arms and enforced discipline? How would command and control work, are a million men under arms work well together without trained non commissioned officers for ever dozen or so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Spread them out over the entire country and compartmentalize
> 
> Idiot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Finally you sign a post with your nickname.  But I digress.
> 
> Who is the supreme commander, does he or she have the moral authority to be followed by millions?
> 
> Without the Command and Control structure how would food and arms be distributed to each compartment?  Armies require more than fighting men, the fighting men require food clothing and shelter.  Arms of course and at least first aid for the wounded need to be in effect before the first round is fired.
> 
> Of course a guerrilla war would pester a well-regulated military force; yet if Marshall Law was ordered, and Habeas Corpus were suspended, and each spy or vandal hung and left to be seen by his comrades  your fictional force will run home waving the white flag of surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter.
> 
> If the people felt the need to take up arms they would work it out
> 
> It ain't gonna happen but if it did the people would figure it out.
> 
> and we didn't surrender to the British did we?
> The Afghans didn't surrender to the USSR or to us did they?
> 
> Belief goes a long way towards adaptation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> David Koresh and the Branch Davidians are an example of when people take up arms, as well as Donald DeFreeze and the Symbionese Liberation Army.  Way before these events the Whisky Rebellion and,Shay's Rebellion, were also small matters, mostly footnotes to our history.
Click to expand...


FYI it was the government that attacked Koresh not the converse


----------



## danielpalos

Darkwind said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I won't look at today.  I will look at the time around 1790.
> 
> *Militia Act of 1792*
> _Every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.
> _
> First we need to look at who was a Citizen in 1790s.  In the 1790s, ALL Blacks even free Blacks were prohibited from owning and carrying firearms.  All People even whites that would not swear allegiance to the newly formed United States were prohibited from owning or carrying fire arms.  Women were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms.  Bonded Slaves, even whites were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms of any kind.  It all pretty much boiled down that a Citizen was a Free White Male Land Owner deemed to be in good standing with the Existing Government both Stated and Federal Governments.  It's been estimated that only about 8% of the population from that time met the full requirement to own, possess and carry firearms legally.  Remember, more than half of the population of that time either supported the Crown or leaned heavily in that direction.  The Newly Formed Colonist Government did exactly what the British Government tried to do themselves.
> 
> There were two rebellions that made the Militia Act of 1792 to be written and adopted.  The Shays Rebellion of 1786-1787 and the Whiskey Rebellion 1791-1794.  While neither amounted to much, the founding fathers were scared to death that something else might come up that might endanger the newly formed Government so they adopted the 2nd Amendment as it was written since there was no Standing Army to prevent any decent resurrection from becoming successful.    It was left up to each state individually to provide the militias to prevent it from happening.  As long as the states agreed and didn't go to war with each other.
> 
> Using the original definition, if you don't own your House, Farm or Business and you don't completely and blindly support our current Government then are not a Citizen in Good Standings and will not be afforded the right to own, posses or carry any form of Firearms.  Oh, and you must be a Free White Male as well.
> 
> 
> 
> Not that I expect you would read it.
> 
> The Second Amendment as an Expression of First Principles
Click to expand...




> The notion of collective rights is wholly the invention of the Progressive founders of the administrative state, who were engaged in a self-conscious effort to supplant the principles of limited government embodied in the Constitution.



I agree to disagree with, that as well. 

Words have meaning and are terms in our Constitution which is the equivalent to a social Contract.

The People and the Militia are both collective and plural.  The context, the security needs of a free State, is also collective and plural.


----------



## danielpalos

Darkwind said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I won't look at today.  I will look at the time around 1790.
> 
> *Militia Act of 1792*
> _Every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.
> _
> First we need to look at who was a Citizen in 1790s.  In the 1790s, ALL Blacks even free Blacks were prohibited from owning and carrying firearms.  All People even whites that would not swear allegiance to the newly formed United States were prohibited from owning or carrying fire arms.  Women were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms.  Bonded Slaves, even whites were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms of any kind.  It all pretty much boiled down that a Citizen was a Free White Male Land Owner deemed to be in good standing with the Existing Government both Stated and Federal Governments.  It's been estimated that only about 8% of the population from that time met the full requirement to own, possess and carry firearms legally.  Remember, more than half of the population of that time either supported the Crown or leaned heavily in that direction.  The Newly Formed Colonist Government did exactly what the British Government tried to do themselves.
> 
> There were two rebellions that made the Militia Act of 1792 to be written and adopted.  The Shays Rebellion of 1786-1787 and the Whiskey Rebellion 1791-1794.  While neither amounted to much, the founding fathers were scared to death that something else might come up that might endanger the newly formed Government so they adopted the 2nd Amendment as it was written since there was no Standing Army to prevent any decent resurrection from becoming successful.    It was left up to each state individually to provide the militias to prevent it from happening.  As long as the states agreed and didn't go to war with each other.
> 
> Using the original definition, if you don't own your House, Farm or Business and you don't completely and blindly support our current Government then are not a Citizen in Good Standings and will not be afforded the right to own, posses or carry any form of Firearms.  Oh, and you must be a Free White Male as well.
> 
> 
> 
> Not that I expect you would read it.
> 
> The Second Amendment as an Expression of First Principles
Click to expand...




> As a result, they regarded what the Founders called the “rights of human nature” as an enemy of collective welfare, which should always take precedence over the rights of individuals. For Progressives then and now, the welfare of the people—not liberty—is the primary object of government, and government should always be in the hands of experts.



I object to this right wing propaganda, as well.  Providing for the general welfare is a general power not a common power.  Individual Liberty really is, an individual problem not an institutional problem.  We have a Ninth Amendment.

What excuse for the denial and disparagement to our natural and individual rights, due to our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror; that, the right wing, refuses to pay for with necessary and proper tax rates?


----------



## danielpalos

Darkwind said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I won't look at today.  I will look at the time around 1790.
> 
> *Militia Act of 1792*
> _Every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.
> _
> First we need to look at who was a Citizen in 1790s.  In the 1790s, ALL Blacks even free Blacks were prohibited from owning and carrying firearms.  All People even whites that would not swear allegiance to the newly formed United States were prohibited from owning or carrying fire arms.  Women were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms.  Bonded Slaves, even whites were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms of any kind.  It all pretty much boiled down that a Citizen was a Free White Male Land Owner deemed to be in good standing with the Existing Government both Stated and Federal Governments.  It's been estimated that only about 8% of the population from that time met the full requirement to own, possess and carry firearms legally.  Remember, more than half of the population of that time either supported the Crown or leaned heavily in that direction.  The Newly Formed Colonist Government did exactly what the British Government tried to do themselves.
> 
> There were two rebellions that made the Militia Act of 1792 to be written and adopted.  The Shays Rebellion of 1786-1787 and the Whiskey Rebellion 1791-1794.  While neither amounted to much, the founding fathers were scared to death that something else might come up that might endanger the newly formed Government so they adopted the 2nd Amendment as it was written since there was no Standing Army to prevent any decent resurrection from becoming successful.    It was left up to each state individually to provide the militias to prevent it from happening.  As long as the states agreed and didn't go to war with each other.
> 
> Using the original definition, if you don't own your House, Farm or Business and you don't completely and blindly support our current Government then are not a Citizen in Good Standings and will not be afforded the right to own, posses or carry any form of Firearms.  Oh, and you must be a Free White Male as well.
> 
> 
> 
> Not that I expect you would read it.
> 
> The Second Amendment as an Expression of First Principles
Click to expand...

nothing but a fallacy of false Cause.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Skull Pilot said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about that ^^^:
> 
> Ever wonder how a few million would be fed, provided shelter, training, arms and enforced discipline? How would command and control work, are a million men under arms work well together without trained non commissioned officers for ever dozen or so?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spread them out over the entire country and compartmentalize
> 
> Idiot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Finally you sign a post with your nickname.  But I digress.
> 
> Who is the supreme commander, does he or she have the moral authority to be followed by millions?
> 
> Without the Command and Control structure how would food and arms be distributed to each compartment?  Armies require more than fighting men, the fighting men require food clothing and shelter.  Arms of course and at least first aid for the wounded need to be in effect before the first round is fired.
> 
> Of course a guerrilla war would pester a well-regulated military force; yet if Marshall Law was ordered, and Habeas Corpus were suspended, and each spy or vandal hung and left to be seen by his comrades  your fictional force will run home waving the white flag of surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter.
> 
> If the people felt the need to take up arms they would work it out
> 
> It ain't gonna happen but if it did the people would figure it out.
> 
> and we didn't surrender to the British did we?
> The Afghans didn't surrender to the USSR or to us did they?
> 
> Belief goes a long way towards adaptation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> David Koresh and the Branch Davidians are an example of when people take up arms, as well as Donald DeFreeze and the Symbionese Liberation Army.  Way before these events the Whisky Rebellion and,Shay's Rebellion, were also small matters, mostly footnotes to our history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FYI it was the government that attacked Koresh not the converse
Click to expand...


A difference without a distinction in terms of the issue.  Koresh was loaded for bear, and the bear won.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I won't look at today.  I will look at the time around 1790.
> 
> *Militia Act of 1792*
> _Every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.
> _
> First we need to look at who was a Citizen in 1790s.  In the 1790s, ALL Blacks even free Blacks were prohibited from owning and carrying firearms.  All People even whites that would not swear allegiance to the newly formed United States were prohibited from owning or carrying fire arms.  Women were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms.  Bonded Slaves, even whites were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms of any kind.  It all pretty much boiled down that a Citizen was a Free White Male Land Owner deemed to be in good standing with the Existing Government both Stated and Federal Governments.  It's been estimated that only about 8% of the population from that time met the full requirement to own, possess and carry firearms legally.  Remember, more than half of the population of that time either supported the Crown or leaned heavily in that direction.  The Newly Formed Colonist Government did exactly what the British Government tried to do themselves.
> 
> There were two rebellions that made the Militia Act of 1792 to be written and adopted.  The Shays Rebellion of 1786-1787 and the Whiskey Rebellion 1791-1794.  While neither amounted to much, the founding fathers were scared to death that something else might come up that might endanger the newly formed Government so they adopted the 2nd Amendment as it was written since there was no Standing Army to prevent any decent resurrection from becoming successful.    It was left up to each state individually to provide the militias to prevent it from happening.  As long as the states agreed and didn't go to war with each other.
> 
> Using the original definition, if you don't own your House, Farm or Business and you don't completely and blindly support our current Government then are not a Citizen in Good Standings and will not be afforded the right to own, posses or carry any form of Firearms.  Oh, and you must be a Free White Male as well.
> 
> 
> 
> Not that I expect you would read it.
> 
> The Second Amendment as an Expression of First Principles
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment is unique among the amendments in the Bill of Rights, in that it contains a preface explaining the reason for the right protected: Militias are necessary for the security of a free state. We cannot read the words “free State” here as a reference to the several states that make up the Union. The frequent use of the phrase “free State” in the founding era makes it abundantly clear that it means a non-tyrannical or non-despotic state. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in the case of _District of Columbia v. Heller_ (2008), rightly remarked that the term and its “close variations” were “terms of art in 18th-century political discourse, meaning a free country or free polity.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree to disagree, if we have to quibble.  A free State of our Union, is one free from federal interference in its internal affairs.
Click to expand...


There is no quibbling.  YOu are being corrected for your inaccurate claims.  You keep talking about others being clueless, and yet you claim the states are the source of our guaranteed rights.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I won't look at today.  I will look at the time around 1790.
> 
> *Militia Act of 1792*
> _Every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.
> _
> First we need to look at who was a Citizen in 1790s.  In the 1790s, ALL Blacks even free Blacks were prohibited from owning and carrying firearms.  All People even whites that would not swear allegiance to the newly formed United States were prohibited from owning or carrying fire arms.  Women were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms.  Bonded Slaves, even whites were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms of any kind.  It all pretty much boiled down that a Citizen was a Free White Male Land Owner deemed to be in good standing with the Existing Government both Stated and Federal Governments.  It's been estimated that only about 8% of the population from that time met the full requirement to own, possess and carry firearms legally.  Remember, more than half of the population of that time either supported the Crown or leaned heavily in that direction.  The Newly Formed Colonist Government did exactly what the British Government tried to do themselves.
> 
> There were two rebellions that made the Militia Act of 1792 to be written and adopted.  The Shays Rebellion of 1786-1787 and the Whiskey Rebellion 1791-1794.  While neither amounted to much, the founding fathers were scared to death that something else might come up that might endanger the newly formed Government so they adopted the 2nd Amendment as it was written since there was no Standing Army to prevent any decent resurrection from becoming successful.    It was left up to each state individually to provide the militias to prevent it from happening.  As long as the states agreed and didn't go to war with each other.
> 
> Using the original definition, if you don't own your House, Farm or Business and you don't completely and blindly support our current Government then are not a Citizen in Good Standings and will not be afforded the right to own, posses or carry any form of Firearms.  Oh, and you must be a Free White Male as well.
> 
> 
> 
> Not that I expect you would read it.
> 
> The Second Amendment as an Expression of First Principles
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The notion of collective rights is wholly the invention of the Progressive founders of the administrative state, who were engaged in a self-conscious effort to supplant the principles of limited government embodied in the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree to disagree with, that as well.
> 
> Words have meaning and are terms in our Constitution which is the equivalent to a social Contract.
> 
> The People and the Militia are both collective and plural.  The context, the security needs of a free State, is also collective and plural.
Click to expand...


Plural because it is guaranteeing a right to the population, not just one person.   And the "collective" claim is still just your imagination.  You have no evidence or backup for that claim.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Wry Catcher said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spread them out over the entire country and compartmentalize
> 
> Idiot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Finally you sign a post with your nickname.  But I digress.
> 
> Who is the supreme commander, does he or she have the moral authority to be followed by millions?
> 
> Without the Command and Control structure how would food and arms be distributed to each compartment?  Armies require more than fighting men, the fighting men require food clothing and shelter.  Arms of course and at least first aid for the wounded need to be in effect before the first round is fired.
> 
> Of course a guerrilla war would pester a well-regulated military force; yet if Marshall Law was ordered, and  Habeas Corpus were suspended, and each spy or vandal hung and left to be seen by his comrades  your fictional force will run home waving the white flag of surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter.
> 
> If the people felt the need to take up arms they would work it out
> 
> It ain't gonna happen but if it did the people would figure it out.
> 
> and we didn't surrender to the British did we?
> The Afghans didn't surrender to the USSR or to us did they?
> 
> Belief goes a long way towards adaptation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> David Koresh and the Branch Davidians are an example of when people take up arms, as well as Donald DeFreeze and the Symbionese Liberation Army.  Way before these events the Whisky Rebellion and,Shay's Rebellion, were also small matters, mostly footnotes to our history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FYI it was the government that attacked Koresh not the converse
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A difference without a distinction in terms of the issue.  Koresh was loaded for bear, and the bear won.
Click to expand...


It makes a very big difference.

There was no evidence Koresh was going to attack anyone never mind the government. 

There was no reason for the government to attack since they had a myriad of opportunities to pick up Koresh but they wanted to play with their toys so people died


----------



## Pop23

Skull Pilot said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about that ^^^:
> 
> Ever wonder how a few million would be fed, provided shelter, training, arms and enforced discipline? How would command and control work, are a million men under arms work well together without trained non commissioned officers for ever dozen or so?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spread them out over the entire country and compartmentalize
> 
> Idiot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Finally you sign a post with your nickname.  But I digress.
> 
> Who is the supreme commander, does he or she have the moral authority to be followed by millions?
> 
> Without the Command and Control structure how would food and arms be distributed to each compartment?  Armies require more than fighting men, the fighting men require food clothing and shelter.  Arms of course and at least first aid for the wounded need to be in effect before the first round is fired.
> 
> Of course a guerrilla war would pester a well-regulated military force; yet if Marshall Law was ordered, and Habeas Corpus were suspended, and each spy or vandal hung and left to be seen by his comrades  your fictional force will run home waving the white flag of surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter.
> 
> If the people felt the need to take up arms they would work it out
> 
> It ain't gonna happen but if it did the people would figure it out.
> 
> and we didn't surrender to the British did we?
> The Afghans didn't surrender to the USSR or to us did they?
> 
> Belief goes a long way towards adaptation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> David Koresh and the Branch Davidians are an example of when people take up arms, as well as Donald DeFreeze and the Symbionese Liberation Army.  Way before these events the Whisky Rebellion and,Shay's Rebellion, were also small matters, mostly footnotes to our history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FYI it was the government that attacked Koresh not the converse
Click to expand...


Yeah, I find it incredible the lengths that the left will take in this type of argument. Even the agents that were on site saw this as an incredible over reach. It actually serves as a reason that the people need to retain the rights to self defense from a rogue government.


----------



## Pop23

Wry Catcher said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spread them out over the entire country and compartmentalize
> 
> Idiot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Finally you sign a post with your nickname.  But I digress.
> 
> Who is the supreme commander, does he or she have the moral authority to be followed by millions?
> 
> Without the Command and Control structure how would food and arms be distributed to each compartment?  Armies require more than fighting men, the fighting men require food clothing and shelter.  Arms of course and at least first aid for the wounded need to be in effect before the first round is fired.
> 
> Of course a guerrilla war would pester a well-regulated military force; yet if Marshall Law was ordered, and Habeas Corpus were suspended, and each spy or vandal hung and left to be seen by his comrades  your fictional force will run home waving the white flag of surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter.
> 
> If the people felt the need to take up arms they would work it out
> 
> It ain't gonna happen but if it did the people would figure it out.
> 
> and we didn't surrender to the British did we?
> The Afghans didn't surrender to the USSR or to us did they?
> 
> Belief goes a long way towards adaptation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> David Koresh and the Branch Davidians are an example of when people take up arms, as well as Donald DeFreeze and the Symbionese Liberation Army.  Way before these events the Whisky Rebellion and,Shay's Rebellion, were also small matters, mostly footnotes to our history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FYI it was the government that attacked Koresh not the converse
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A difference without a distinction in terms of the issue.  Koresh was loaded for bear, and the bear won.
Click to expand...


So, fear the bear?

If a bear attacks, lie there and die? That is what murderers and rapists want.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I won't look at today.  I will look at the time around 1790.
> 
> *Militia Act of 1792*
> _Every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.
> _
> First we need to look at who was a Citizen in 1790s.  In the 1790s, ALL Blacks even free Blacks were prohibited from owning and carrying firearms.  All People even whites that would not swear allegiance to the newly formed United States were prohibited from owning or carrying fire arms.  Women were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms.  Bonded Slaves, even whites were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms of any kind.  It all pretty much boiled down that a Citizen was a Free White Male Land Owner deemed to be in good standing with the Existing Government both Stated and Federal Governments.  It's been estimated that only about 8% of the population from that time met the full requirement to own, possess and carry firearms legally.  Remember, more than half of the population of that time either supported the Crown or leaned heavily in that direction.  The Newly Formed Colonist Government did exactly what the British Government tried to do themselves.
> 
> There were two rebellions that made the Militia Act of 1792 to be written and adopted.  The Shays Rebellion of 1786-1787 and the Whiskey Rebellion 1791-1794.  While neither amounted to much, the founding fathers were scared to death that something else might come up that might endanger the newly formed Government so they adopted the 2nd Amendment as it was written since there was no Standing Army to prevent any decent resurrection from becoming successful.    It was left up to each state individually to provide the militias to prevent it from happening.  As long as the states agreed and didn't go to war with each other.
> 
> Using the original definition, if you don't own your House, Farm or Business and you don't completely and blindly support our current Government then are not a Citizen in Good Standings and will not be afforded the right to own, posses or carry any form of Firearms.  Oh, and you must be a Free White Male as well.
> 
> 
> 
> Not that I expect you would read it.
> 
> The Second Amendment as an Expression of First Principles
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment is unique among the amendments in the Bill of Rights, in that it contains a preface explaining the reason for the right protected: Militias are necessary for the security of a free state. We cannot read the words “free State” here as a reference to the several states that make up the Union. The frequent use of the phrase “free State” in the founding era makes it abundantly clear that it means a non-tyrannical or non-despotic state. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in the case of _District of Columbia v. Heller_ (2008), rightly remarked that the term and its “close variations” were “terms of art in 18th-century political discourse, meaning a free country or free polity.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree to disagree, if we have to quibble.  A free State of our Union, is one free from federal interference in its internal affairs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no quibbling.  YOu are being corrected for your inaccurate claims.  You keep talking about others being clueless, and yet you claim the states are the source of our guaranteed rights.
Click to expand...

lol.  Yes, they are.  That is why, States are important.  They recognize and secure natural and individal rights.


----------



## danielpalos

Pop23 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Finally you sign a post with your nickname.  But I digress.
> 
> Who is the supreme commander, does he or she have the moral authority to be followed by millions?
> 
> Without the Command and Control structure how would food and arms be distributed to each compartment?  Armies require more than fighting men, the fighting men require food clothing and shelter.  Arms of course and at least first aid for the wounded need to be in effect before the first round is fired.
> 
> Of course a guerrilla war would pester a well-regulated military force; yet if Marshall Law was ordered, and Habeas Corpus were suspended, and each spy or vandal hung and left to be seen by his comrades  your fictional force will run home waving the white flag of surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter.
> 
> If the people felt the need to take up arms they would work it out
> 
> It ain't gonna happen but if it did the people would figure it out.
> 
> and we didn't surrender to the British did we?
> The Afghans didn't surrender to the USSR or to us did they?
> 
> Belief goes a long way towards adaptation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> David Koresh and the Branch Davidians are an example of when people take up arms, as well as Donald DeFreeze and the Symbionese Liberation Army.  Way before these events the Whisky Rebellion and,Shay's Rebellion, were also small matters, mostly footnotes to our history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FYI it was the government that attacked Koresh not the converse
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A difference without a distinction in terms of the issue.  Koresh was loaded for bear, and the bear won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, fear the bear?
> 
> If a bear attacks, lie there and die? That is what murderers and rapists want.
Click to expand...

Yes, muster the militia; only privateers, potentially up to no good, will "fear the bear", then.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Pop23 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Finally you sign a post with your nickname.  But I digress.
> 
> Who is the supreme commander, does he or she have the moral authority to be followed by millions?
> 
> Without the Command and Control structure how would food and arms be distributed to each compartment?  Armies require more than fighting men, the fighting men require food clothing and shelter.  Arms of course and at least first aid for the wounded need to be in effect before the first round is fired.
> 
> Of course a guerrilla war would pester a well-regulated military force; yet if Marshall Law was ordered, and Habeas Corpus were suspended, and each spy or vandal hung and left to be seen by his comrades  your fictional force will run home waving the white flag of surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter.
> 
> If the people felt the need to take up arms they would work it out
> 
> It ain't gonna happen but if it did the people would figure it out.
> 
> and we didn't surrender to the British did we?
> The Afghans didn't surrender to the USSR or to us did they?
> 
> Belief goes a long way towards adaptation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> David Koresh and the Branch Davidians are an example of when people take up arms, as well as Donald DeFreeze and the Symbionese Liberation Army.  Way before these events the Whisky Rebellion and,Shay's Rebellion, were also small matters, mostly footnotes to our history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FYI it was the government that attacked Koresh not the converse
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A difference without a distinction in terms of the issue.  Koresh was loaded for bear, and the bear won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, fear the bear?
> 
> If a bear attacks, lie there and die? That is what murderers and rapists want.
Click to expand...


It seems a possum has more brains than do you.  Of course the phrase loaded for bear was metaphorically used, for the issue was much greater than the weapons cache he had:

fyi:

FAQs | Waco - The Inside Story | FRONTLINE | PBS


----------



## Pop23

Wry Catcher said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter.
> 
> If the people felt the need to take up arms they would work it out
> 
> It ain't gonna happen but if it did the people would figure it out.
> 
> and we didn't surrender to the British did we?
> The Afghans didn't surrender to the USSR or to us did they?
> 
> Belief goes a long way towards adaptation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David Koresh and the Branch Davidians are an example of when people take up arms, as well as Donald DeFreeze and the Symbionese Liberation Army.  Way before these events the Whisky Rebellion and,Shay's Rebellion, were also small matters, mostly footnotes to our history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FYI it was the government that attacked Koresh not the converse
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A difference without a distinction in terms of the issue.  Koresh was loaded for bear, and the bear won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, fear the bear?
> 
> If a bear attacks, lie there and die? That is what murderers and rapists want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It seems a possum has more brains than do you.  Of course the phrase loaded for bear was metaphorically used, for the issue was much greater than he weapons cache he had:
> 
> fyi:
> 
> FAQs | Waco - The Inside Story | FRONTLINE | PBS
Click to expand...


I actually watched it. I especially liked the part where the agents initially assigned to it warned the government to back off because the cover was blown, and any attempt would meet up with enormous loss of life. Wise men indeed, but a Rogue United States official wouldn't listen and innocent men women and children went to their graves.

And we don't need armed citizens? Why?


----------



## Pop23

danielpalos said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter.
> 
> If the people felt the need to take up arms they would work it out
> 
> It ain't gonna happen but if it did the people would figure it out.
> 
> and we didn't surrender to the British did we?
> The Afghans didn't surrender to the USSR or to us did they?
> 
> Belief goes a long way towards adaptation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David Koresh and the Branch Davidians are an example of when people take up arms, as well as Donald DeFreeze and the Symbionese Liberation Army.  Way before these events the Whisky Rebellion and,Shay's Rebellion, were also small matters, mostly footnotes to our history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FYI it was the government that attacked Koresh not the converse
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A difference without a distinction in terms of the issue.  Koresh was loaded for bear, and the bear won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, fear the bear?
> 
> If a bear attacks, lie there and die? That is what murderers and rapists want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, muster the militia; only privateers, potentially up to no good, will "fear the bear", then.
Click to expand...


Rapists appreciate your support.


----------



## danielpalos

Pop23 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> David Koresh and the Branch Davidians are an example of when people take up arms, as well as Donald DeFreeze and the Symbionese Liberation Army.  Way before these events the Whisky Rebellion and,Shay's Rebellion, were also small matters, mostly footnotes to our history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FYI it was the government that attacked Koresh not the converse
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A difference without a distinction in terms of the issue.  Koresh was loaded for bear, and the bear won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, fear the bear?
> 
> If a bear attacks, lie there and die? That is what murderers and rapists want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, muster the militia; only privateers, potentially up to no good, will "fear the bear", then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rapists appreciate your support.
Click to expand...

are they going to muster to get well regulated or not?


----------



## Pop23

danielpalos said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> FYI it was the government that attacked Koresh not the converse
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A difference without a distinction in terms of the issue.  Koresh was loaded for bear, and the bear won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, fear the bear?
> 
> If a bear attacks, lie there and die? That is what murderers and rapists want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, muster the militia; only privateers, potentially up to no good, will "fear the bear", then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rapists appreciate your support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> are they going to muster to get well regulated or not?
Click to expand...


Why would I, there is no need, and the Second makes no such requirement.


----------



## Pop23

danielpalos said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> FYI it was the government that attacked Koresh not the converse
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A difference without a distinction in terms of the issue.  Koresh was loaded for bear, and the bear won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, fear the bear?
> 
> If a bear attacks, lie there and die? That is what murderers and rapists want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, muster the militia; only privateers, potentially up to no good, will "fear the bear", then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rapists appreciate your support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> are they going to muster to get well regulated or not?
Click to expand...


Are you going to muster up well regulated rapists?


----------



## danielpalos

Pop23 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> A difference without a distinction in terms of the issue.  Koresh was loaded for bear, and the bear won.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, fear the bear?
> 
> If a bear attacks, lie there and die? That is what murderers and rapists want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, muster the militia; only privateers, potentially up to no good, will "fear the bear", then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rapists appreciate your support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> are they going to muster to get well regulated or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would I, there is no need, and the Second makes no such requirement.
Click to expand...

lol.  Our Second Amendment, makes this a States' sovereign right:


> 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.


We have a Second Amendment, and should have no security problems in our free States.


----------



## danielpalos

Pop23 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> A difference without a distinction in terms of the issue.  Koresh was loaded for bear, and the bear won.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, fear the bear?
> 
> If a bear attacks, lie there and die? That is what murderers and rapists want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, muster the militia; only privateers, potentially up to no good, will "fear the bear", then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rapists appreciate your support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> are they going to muster to get well regulated or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you going to muster up well regulated rapists?
Click to expand...

if they have to muster to get, "well regulated".


----------



## Pop23

danielpalos said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, fear the bear?
> 
> If a bear attacks, lie there and die? That is what murderers and rapists want.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, muster the militia; only privateers, potentially up to no good, will "fear the bear", then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rapists appreciate your support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> are they going to muster to get well regulated or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would I, there is no need, and the Second makes no such requirement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Our Second Amendment, makes this a States' sovereign right:
> 
> 
> 
> 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...
> 
> We have a Second Amendment, and should have no security problems in our free States.
Click to expand...


Since you like to go around and around in circles:

Why would I, there is no need, and the Second makes no such requirement


----------



## danielpalos

Pop23 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, muster the militia; only privateers, potentially up to no good, will "fear the bear", then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rapists appreciate your support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> are they going to muster to get well regulated or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would I, there is no need, and the Second makes no such requirement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Our Second Amendment, makes this a States' sovereign right:
> 
> 
> 
> 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...
> 
> We have a Second Amendment, and should have no security problems in our free States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since you like to go around and around in circles:
> 
> Why would I, there is no need, and the Second makes no such requirement
Click to expand...

lol.  States can and should.  Or, they should stop asking for federal war on crime, drugs, and terror dollars.


----------



## Wry Catcher

danielpalos said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rapists appreciate your support.
> 
> 
> 
> are they going to muster to get well regulated or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would I, there is no need, and the Second makes no such requirement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Our Second Amendment, makes this a States' sovereign right:
> 
> 
> 
> 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...
> 
> 
> We have a Second Amendment, and should have no security problems in our free States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since you like to go around and around in circles:
> 
> Why would I, there is no need, and the Second makes no such requirement
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol.  States can and should.  Or, they should stop asking for federal war on crime, drugs, and terror dollars.
Click to expand...



Do you know they ask for Federal Dollars?  Or do they apply for grants to reduce crime.  As for drugs, states ought to be able to decriminalize drugs of abuse, and regulate their use - which in my informed opinion will reduce crime.

Terrorism*** is the responsibility and constitutional duty of the Federal Government, and In fact the Congress and the President who have politicized the issue and thus failed in their duty.

***in terms of domestic and foreign terror imposed on innocent citizens.


----------



## Flopper

Daryl Hunt said:


> I won't look at today.  I will look at the time around 1790.
> 
> *Militia Act of 1792*
> _Every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.
> _
> First we need to look at who was a Citizen in 1790s.  In the 1790s, ALL Blacks even free Blacks were prohibited from owning and carrying firearms.  All People even whites that would not swear allegiance to the newly formed United States were prohibited from owning or carrying fire arms.  Women were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms.  Bonded Slaves, even whites were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms of any kind.  It all pretty much boiled down that a Citizen was a Free White Male Land Owner deemed to be in good standing with the Existing Government both Stated and Federal Governments.  It's been estimated that only about 8% of the population from that time met the full requirement to own, possess and carry firearms legally.  Remember, more than half of the population of that time either supported the Crown or leaned heavily in that direction.  The Newly Formed Colonist Government did exactly what the British Government tried to do themselves.
> 
> There were two rebellions that made the Militia Act of 1792 to be written and adopted.  The Shays Rebellion of 1786-1787 and the Whiskey Rebellion 1791-1794.  While neither amounted to much, the founding fathers were scared to death that something else might come up that might endanger the newly formed Government so they adopted the 2nd Amendment as it was written since there was no Standing Army to prevent any decent resurrection from becoming successful.    It was left up to each state individually to provide the militias to prevent it from happening.  As long as the states agreed and didn't go to war with each other.
> 
> Using the original definition, if you don't own your House, Farm or Business and you don't completely and blindly support our current Government then are not a Citizen in Good Standings and will not be afforded the right to own, posses or carry any form of Firearms.  Oh, and you must be a Free White Male as well.


*Good Post.
I think the key point is there was no real standing army capable of protecting the nation at end of the war, only the remnants of the continental army.  Most of the regiments disbanded after the war. Congress was bankrupt and had no money to support an army and most colonists opposed having a standing army.  Feelings were so strong that two colonies passed laws forbidding any standing army within the boarders of their state without the approval of the legislature. Thus, it's easy to see why the founders believed the only viable option were the militias.  It was within this environment that the 2nd amendment was born. 

The first two phrases of the amendment gives the reason for the right to bear arms, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."  Today we have a standing army, a military force that's capable of defending the nation which congress has funds to support.  Further the American people no longer fear a standing army.  Most American are very supportive our armed forces.

The fact is the reason as stated in constitution for the right to bear arms no longer exist.*


----------



## danielpalos

Wry Catcher said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> are they going to muster to get well regulated or not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I, there is no need, and the Second makes no such requirement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Our Second Amendment, makes this a States' sovereign right:
> 
> 
> 
> 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...
> 
> 
> We have a Second Amendment, and should have no security problems in our free States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since you like to go around and around in circles:
> 
> Why would I, there is no need, and the Second makes no such requirement
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol.  States can and should.  Or, they should stop asking for federal war on crime, drugs, and terror dollars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know they ask for Federal Dollars?  Or do they apply for grants to reduce crime.  As for drugs, states ought to be able to decriminalize drugs of abuse, and regulate their use - which in my informed opinion will reduce crime.
> 
> Terrorism*** is the responsibility and constitutional duty of the Federal Government, and In fact the Congress and the President who have politicized the issue and thus failed in their duty.
> 
> ***in terms of domestic and foreign terror imposed on innocent citizens.
Click to expand...

The whole and entire point is, our Second Amendment is part of our supreme law of the land.

We should have no security problems in our free States within our federal Republic and Union.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

Flopper said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I won't look at today.  I will look at the time around 1790.
> 
> *Militia Act of 1792*
> _Every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.
> _
> First we need to look at who was a Citizen in 1790s.  In the 1790s, ALL Blacks even free Blacks were prohibited from owning and carrying firearms.  All People even whites that would not swear allegiance to the newly formed United States were prohibited from owning or carrying fire arms.  Women were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms.  Bonded Slaves, even whites were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms of any kind.  It all pretty much boiled down that a Citizen was a Free White Male Land Owner deemed to be in good standing with the Existing Government both Stated and Federal Governments.  It's been estimated that only about 8% of the population from that time met the full requirement to own, possess and carry firearms legally.  Remember, more than half of the population of that time either supported the Crown or leaned heavily in that direction.  The Newly Formed Colonist Government did exactly what the British Government tried to do themselves.
> 
> There were two rebellions that made the Militia Act of 1792 to be written and adopted.  The Shays Rebellion of 1786-1787 and the Whiskey Rebellion 1791-1794.  While neither amounted to much, the founding fathers were scared to death that something else might come up that might endanger the newly formed Government so they adopted the 2nd Amendment as it was written since there was no Standing Army to prevent any decent resurrection from becoming successful.    It was left up to each state individually to provide the militias to prevent it from happening.  As long as the states agreed and didn't go to war with each other.
> 
> Using the original definition, if you don't own your House, Farm or Business and you don't completely and blindly support our current Government then are not a Citizen in Good Standings and will not be afforded the right to own, posses or carry any form of Firearms.  Oh, and you must be a Free White Male as well.
> 
> 
> 
> *Good Post.
> I think the key point is there was no real standing army capable of protecting the nation at end of the war, only the remnants of the continental army.  Most of the regiments disbanded after the war. Congress was bankrupt and had no money to support an army and most colonists opposed having a standing army.  Feeling was strong that two colonies passed laws forbidding any standing army within the boarders of their state without the approval of the legislature. Thus, it's easy to see why the founders believed the only viable option were the militias.  It was within this environment that the 2nd amendment was born.
> 
> The first two phrases of the amendment gives the reason for the right to bear arms, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."  Today we have a standing army, a military force that's capable of defending the nation which congress has funds to support.  Further the American people no longer fear a standing army.  Most American are very supportive our armed forces.
> 
> The fact is the reason as stated in constitution for the amendment no longer exist.    *
Click to expand...


Regardless of one's opinion as to current relevancy, the original individual right was re-asserted in Heller, and it remains the law until amended.

I see no mob rushing to amend it.


----------



## Flopper

Billy_Kinetta said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I won't look at today.  I will look at the time around 1790.
> 
> *Militia Act of 1792*
> _Every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.
> _
> First we need to look at who was a Citizen in 1790s.  In the 1790s, ALL Blacks even free Blacks were prohibited from owning and carrying firearms.  All People even whites that would not swear allegiance to the newly formed United States were prohibited from owning or carrying fire arms.  Women were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms.  Bonded Slaves, even whites were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms of any kind.  It all pretty much boiled down that a Citizen was a Free White Male Land Owner deemed to be in good standing with the Existing Government both Stated and Federal Governments.  It's been estimated that only about 8% of the population from that time met the full requirement to own, possess and carry firearms legally.  Remember, more than half of the population of that time either supported the Crown or leaned heavily in that direction.  The Newly Formed Colonist Government did exactly what the British Government tried to do themselves.
> 
> There were two rebellions that made the Militia Act of 1792 to be written and adopted.  The Shays Rebellion of 1786-1787 and the Whiskey Rebellion 1791-1794.  While neither amounted to much, the founding fathers were scared to death that something else might come up that might endanger the newly formed Government so they adopted the 2nd Amendment as it was written since there was no Standing Army to prevent any decent resurrection from becoming successful.    It was left up to each state individually to provide the militias to prevent it from happening.  As long as the states agreed and didn't go to war with each other.
> 
> Using the original definition, if you don't own your House, Farm or Business and you don't completely and blindly support our current Government then are not a Citizen in Good Standings and will not be afforded the right to own, posses or carry any form of Firearms.  Oh, and you must be a Free White Male as well.
> 
> 
> 
> *Good Post.
> I think the key point is there was no real standing army capable of protecting the nation at end of the war, only the remnants of the continental army.  Most of the regiments disbanded after the war. Congress was bankrupt and had no money to support an army and most colonists opposed having a standing army.  Feeling was strong that two colonies passed laws forbidding any standing army within the boarders of their state without the approval of the legislature. Thus, it's easy to see why the founders believed the only viable option were the militias.  It was within this environment that the 2nd amendment was born.
> 
> The first two phrases of the amendment gives the reason for the right to bear arms, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."  Today we have a standing army, a military force that's capable of defending the nation which congress has funds to support.  Further the American people no longer fear a standing army.  Most American are very supportive our armed forces.
> 
> The fact is the reason as stated in constitution for the amendment no longer exist.    *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Regardless of one's opinion as to current relevancy, the original individual right was re-asserted in Heller, and it remains the law until amended.
> 
> I see no mob rushing to amend it.
Click to expand...

*I doubt it will ever be amended because the increase in the number and power of firearms in the nation will convince event the strongest advocates of gun control that easy access to firearms is a necessity.  When most Americans carry guns and use them as they see fit, the time for outlawing guns or even controlling them will be long past.  There will be no need for the NRA or for most law enforcement because each person will become cop, judge, jury, and executioner.*


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

Flopper said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I won't look at today.  I will look at the time around 1790.
> 
> *Militia Act of 1792*
> _Every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.
> _
> First we need to look at who was a Citizen in 1790s.  In the 1790s, ALL Blacks even free Blacks were prohibited from owning and carrying firearms.  All People even whites that would not swear allegiance to the newly formed United States were prohibited from owning or carrying fire arms.  Women were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms.  Bonded Slaves, even whites were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms of any kind.  It all pretty much boiled down that a Citizen was a Free White Male Land Owner deemed to be in good standing with the Existing Government both Stated and Federal Governments.  It's been estimated that only about 8% of the population from that time met the full requirement to own, possess and carry firearms legally.  Remember, more than half of the population of that time either supported the Crown or leaned heavily in that direction.  The Newly Formed Colonist Government did exactly what the British Government tried to do themselves.
> 
> There were two rebellions that made the Militia Act of 1792 to be written and adopted.  The Shays Rebellion of 1786-1787 and the Whiskey Rebellion 1791-1794.  While neither amounted to much, the founding fathers were scared to death that something else might come up that might endanger the newly formed Government so they adopted the 2nd Amendment as it was written since there was no Standing Army to prevent any decent resurrection from becoming successful.    It was left up to each state individually to provide the militias to prevent it from happening.  As long as the states agreed and didn't go to war with each other.
> 
> Using the original definition, if you don't own your House, Farm or Business and you don't completely and blindly support our current Government then are not a Citizen in Good Standings and will not be afforded the right to own, posses or carry any form of Firearms.  Oh, and you must be a Free White Male as well.
> 
> 
> 
> *Good Post.
> I think the key point is there was no real standing army capable of protecting the nation at end of the war, only the remnants of the continental army.  Most of the regiments disbanded after the war. Congress was bankrupt and had no money to support an army and most colonists opposed having a standing army.  Feeling was strong that two colonies passed laws forbidding any standing army within the boarders of their state without the approval of the legislature. Thus, it's easy to see why the founders believed the only viable option were the militias.  It was within this environment that the 2nd amendment was born.
> 
> The first two phrases of the amendment gives the reason for the right to bear arms, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."  Today we have a standing army, a military force that's capable of defending the nation which congress has funds to support.  Further the American people no longer fear a standing army.  Most American are very supportive our armed forces.
> 
> The fact is the reason as stated in constitution for the amendment no longer exist.    *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Regardless of one's opinion as to current relevancy, the original individual right was re-asserted in Heller, and it remains the law until amended.
> 
> I see no mob rushing to amend it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I doubt it will ever be amended because the increase in the number and power of firearms in the nation will convince event the strongest advocates of gun control that easy access to firearms is a necessity.  When most Americans carry guns and use them as they see fit, the time for outlawing guns or even controlling them will be long past.  There will be no need for the NRA or for most law enforcement because each person will become cop, judge, jury, and executioner.*
Click to expand...


Sounds like you need a nice calming cup of hot camomile.


----------



## Pop23

Flopper said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I won't look at today.  I will look at the time around 1790.
> 
> *Militia Act of 1792*
> _Every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.
> _
> First we need to look at who was a Citizen in 1790s.  In the 1790s, ALL Blacks even free Blacks were prohibited from owning and carrying firearms.  All People even whites that would not swear allegiance to the newly formed United States were prohibited from owning or carrying fire arms.  Women were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms.  Bonded Slaves, even whites were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms of any kind.  It all pretty much boiled down that a Citizen was a Free White Male Land Owner deemed to be in good standing with the Existing Government both Stated and Federal Governments.  It's been estimated that only about 8% of the population from that time met the full requirement to own, possess and carry firearms legally.  Remember, more than half of the population of that time either supported the Crown or leaned heavily in that direction.  The Newly Formed Colonist Government did exactly what the British Government tried to do themselves.
> 
> There were two rebellions that made the Militia Act of 1792 to be written and adopted.  The Shays Rebellion of 1786-1787 and the Whiskey Rebellion 1791-1794.  While neither amounted to much, the founding fathers were scared to death that something else might come up that might endanger the newly formed Government so they adopted the 2nd Amendment as it was written since there was no Standing Army to prevent any decent resurrection from becoming successful.    It was left up to each state individually to provide the militias to prevent it from happening.  As long as the states agreed and didn't go to war with each other.
> 
> Using the original definition, if you don't own your House, Farm or Business and you don't completely and blindly support our current Government then are not a Citizen in Good Standings and will not be afforded the right to own, posses or carry any form of Firearms.  Oh, and you must be a Free White Male as well.
> 
> 
> 
> *Good Post.
> I think the key point is there was no real standing army capable of protecting the nation at end of the war, only the remnants of the continental army.  Most of the regiments disbanded after the war. Congress was bankrupt and had no money to support an army and most colonists opposed having a standing army.  Feeling was strong that two colonies passed laws forbidding any standing army within the boarders of their state without the approval of the legislature. Thus, it's easy to see why the founders believed the only viable option were the militias.  It was within this environment that the 2nd amendment was born.
> 
> The first two phrases of the amendment gives the reason for the right to bear arms, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."  Today we have a standing army, a military force that's capable of defending the nation which congress has funds to support.  Further the American people no longer fear a standing army.  Most American are very supportive our armed forces.
> 
> The fact is the reason as stated in constitution for the amendment no longer exist.    *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Regardless of one's opinion as to current relevancy, the original individual right was re-asserted in Heller, and it remains the law until amended.
> 
> I see no mob rushing to amend it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I doubt it will ever be amended because the increase in the number and power of firearms in the nation will convince event the strongest advocates of gun control that easy access to firearms is a necessity.  When most Americans carry guns and use them as they see fit, the time for outlawing guns or even controlling them will be long past.  There will be no need for the NRA or for most law enforcement because each person will become cop, judge, jury, and executioner.*
Click to expand...


So you are advocating that all guns be removed from the citizens of this country. It seems it is the only way that you can effect the policy you have implied.

Right now we have "judge, juries and executioners" out roaming the streets. They're called gang members, robbers and rapists, and, unless you can figure out a way to disarm them first, then you are making those with little defense, completely defenseless. And that is the real "judge, jury and executioners" we should be focusing on, not law abiding citizens who appear to be the brunt of your ire.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I won't look at today.  I will look at the time around 1790.
> 
> *Militia Act of 1792*
> _Every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.
> _
> First we need to look at who was a Citizen in 1790s.  In the 1790s, ALL Blacks even free Blacks were prohibited from owning and carrying firearms.  All People even whites that would not swear allegiance to the newly formed United States were prohibited from owning or carrying fire arms.  Women were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms.  Bonded Slaves, even whites were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms of any kind.  It all pretty much boiled down that a Citizen was a Free White Male Land Owner deemed to be in good standing with the Existing Government both Stated and Federal Governments.  It's been estimated that only about 8% of the population from that time met the full requirement to own, possess and carry firearms legally.  Remember, more than half of the population of that time either supported the Crown or leaned heavily in that direction.  The Newly Formed Colonist Government did exactly what the British Government tried to do themselves.
> 
> There were two rebellions that made the Militia Act of 1792 to be written and adopted.  The Shays Rebellion of 1786-1787 and the Whiskey Rebellion 1791-1794.  While neither amounted to much, the founding fathers were scared to death that something else might come up that might endanger the newly formed Government so they adopted the 2nd Amendment as it was written since there was no Standing Army to prevent any decent resurrection from becoming successful.    It was left up to each state individually to provide the militias to prevent it from happening.  As long as the states agreed and didn't go to war with each other.
> 
> Using the original definition, if you don't own your House, Farm or Business and you don't completely and blindly support our current Government then are not a Citizen in Good Standings and will not be afforded the right to own, posses or carry any form of Firearms.  Oh, and you must be a Free White Male as well.
> 
> 
> 
> Not that I expect you would read it.
> 
> The Second Amendment as an Expression of First Principles
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment is unique among the amendments in the Bill of Rights, in that it contains a preface explaining the reason for the right protected: Militias are necessary for the security of a free state. We cannot read the words “free State” here as a reference to the several states that make up the Union. The frequent use of the phrase “free State” in the founding era makes it abundantly clear that it means a non-tyrannical or non-despotic state. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in the case of _District of Columbia v. Heller_ (2008), rightly remarked that the term and its “close variations” were “terms of art in 18th-century political discourse, meaning a free country or free polity.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree to disagree, if we have to quibble.  A free State of our Union, is one free from federal interference in its internal affairs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no quibbling.  YOu are being corrected for your inaccurate claims.  You keep talking about others being clueless, and yet you claim the states are the source of our guaranteed rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Yes, they are.  That is why, States are important.  They recognize and secure natural and individal rights.
Click to expand...


Yes, states are important.  I never said otherwise.  But the basic rights are listed in the US Constitution, and cannot be overruled by any state.  The US Constitution guarantees certain rights to all citizens.  The states may expand on those, but they cannot take them away.


----------



## koshergrl

Daryl Hunt said:


> I won't look at today.  I will look at the time around 1790.
> 
> *Militia Act of 1792*
> _Every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.
> _
> First we need to look at who was a Citizen in 1790s.  In the 1790s, ALL Blacks even free Blacks were prohibited from owning and carrying firearms.  All People even whites that would not swear allegiance to the newly formed United States were prohibited from owning or carrying fire arms.  Women were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms.  Bonded Slaves, even whites were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms of any kind.  It all pretty much boiled down that a Citizen was a Free White Male Land Owner deemed to be in good standing with the Existing Government both Stated and Federal Governments.  It's been estimated that only about 8% of the population from that time met the full requirement to own, possess and carry firearms legally.  Remember, more than half of the population of that time either supported the Crown or leaned heavily in that direction.  The Newly Formed Colonist Government did exactly what the British Government tried to do themselves.
> 
> There were two rebellions that made the Militia Act of 1792 to be written and adopted.  The Shays Rebellion of 1786-1787 and the Whiskey Rebellion 1791-1794.  While neither amounted to much, the founding fathers were scared to death that something else might come up that might endanger the newly formed Government so they adopted the 2nd Amendment as it was written since there was no Standing Army to prevent any decent resurrection from becoming successful.    It was left up to each state individually to provide the militias to prevent it from happening.  As long as the states agreed and didn't go to war with each other.
> 
> Using the original definition, if you don't own your House, Farm or Business and you don't completely and blindly support our current Government then are not a Citizen in Good Standings and will not be afforded the right to own, posses or carry any form of Firearms.  Oh, and you must be a Free White Male as well.



Actually, what you have sourced doesn't say any of that.

We just have YOU telling us what constituted citizenship. Not that it matters. Blacks fought long and hard to be allowed to bear arms. You are wanting to remove that right from them.

Meanwhile, no, land ownership was not required for citizenship in  1790 . 

Naturalization Act of 1790 - Wikipedia


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> FYI it was the government that attacked Koresh not the converse
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A difference without a distinction in terms of the issue.  Koresh was loaded for bear, and the bear won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, fear the bear?
> 
> If a bear attacks, lie there and die? That is what murderers and rapists want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, muster the militia; only privateers, potentially up to no good, will "fear the bear", then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rapists appreciate your support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> are they going to muster to get well regulated or not?
Click to expand...


Dumbass, you expect criminals to muster for militia or to turn in their firearms?   Really?


----------



## Daryl Hunt

koshergrl said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I won't look at today.  I will look at the time around 1790.
> 
> *Militia Act of 1792*
> _Every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.
> _
> First we need to look at who was a Citizen in 1790s.  In the 1790s, ALL Blacks even free Blacks were prohibited from owning and carrying firearms.  All People even whites that would not swear allegiance to the newly formed United States were prohibited from owning or carrying fire arms.  Women were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms.  Bonded Slaves, even whites were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms of any kind.  It all pretty much boiled down that a Citizen was a Free White Male Land Owner deemed to be in good standing with the Existing Government both Stated and Federal Governments.  It's been estimated that only about 8% of the population from that time met the full requirement to own, possess and carry firearms legally.  Remember, more than half of the population of that time either supported the Crown or leaned heavily in that direction.  The Newly Formed Colonist Government did exactly what the British Government tried to do themselves.
> 
> There were two rebellions that made the Militia Act of 1792 to be written and adopted.  The Shays Rebellion of 1786-1787 and the Whiskey Rebellion 1791-1794.  While neither amounted to much, the founding fathers were scared to death that something else might come up that might endanger the newly formed Government so they adopted the 2nd Amendment as it was written since there was no Standing Army to prevent any decent resurrection from becoming successful.    It was left up to each state individually to provide the militias to prevent it from happening.  As long as the states agreed and didn't go to war with each other.
> 
> Using the original definition, if you don't own your House, Farm or Business and you don't completely and blindly support our current Government then are not a Citizen in Good Standings and will not be afforded the right to own, posses or carry any form of Firearms.  Oh, and you must be a Free White Male as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, what you have sourced doesn't say any of that.
> 
> We just have YOU telling us what constituted citizenship. Not that it matters. Blacks fought long and hard to be allowed to bear arms. You are wanting to remove that right from them.
> 
> Meanwhile, no, land ownership was not required for citizenship in  1790 .
> 
> Naturalization Act of 1790 - Wikipedia
Click to expand...


And those laws weren't followed on iota for many years after it was passed.  You can pass a law but if no one follows it and the polls are closed to a class of people then the law is worthless.  Remember, Women didn't win the right to vote until more than 100 years later.  Blacks had the right to vote but were barred at the local levels in many states.  Yes, even poor white "Trash" were kept from voting or even allowed to openly voice their opinions in town halls.  For many decades after 1790, the rule of the "Citizen" was Free White Land Owner Male in good Standings was the rule if not the law.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I won't look at today.  I will look at the time around 1790.
> 
> *Militia Act of 1792*
> _Every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.
> _
> First we need to look at who was a Citizen in 1790s.  In the 1790s, ALL Blacks even free Blacks were prohibited from owning and carrying firearms.  All People even whites that would not swear allegiance to the newly formed United States were prohibited from owning or carrying fire arms.  Women were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms.  Bonded Slaves, even whites were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms of any kind.  It all pretty much boiled down that a Citizen was a Free White Male Land Owner deemed to be in good standing with the Existing Government both Stated and Federal Governments.  It's been estimated that only about 8% of the population from that time met the full requirement to own, possess and carry firearms legally.  Remember, more than half of the population of that time either supported the Crown or leaned heavily in that direction.  The Newly Formed Colonist Government did exactly what the British Government tried to do themselves.
> 
> There were two rebellions that made the Militia Act of 1792 to be written and adopted.  The Shays Rebellion of 1786-1787 and the Whiskey Rebellion 1791-1794.  While neither amounted to much, the founding fathers were scared to death that something else might come up that might endanger the newly formed Government so they adopted the 2nd Amendment as it was written since there was no Standing Army to prevent any decent resurrection from becoming successful.    It was left up to each state individually to provide the militias to prevent it from happening.  As long as the states agreed and didn't go to war with each other.
> 
> Using the original definition, if you don't own your House, Farm or Business and you don't completely and blindly support our current Government then are not a Citizen in Good Standings and will not be afforded the right to own, posses or carry any form of Firearms.  Oh, and you must be a Free White Male as well.
> 
> 
> 
> Not that I expect you would read it.
> 
> The Second Amendment as an Expression of First Principles
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment is unique among the amendments in the Bill of Rights, in that it contains a preface explaining the reason for the right protected: Militias are necessary for the security of a free state. We cannot read the words “free State” here as a reference to the several states that make up the Union. The frequent use of the phrase “free State” in the founding era makes it abundantly clear that it means a non-tyrannical or non-despotic state. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in the case of _District of Columbia v. Heller_ (2008), rightly remarked that the term and its “close variations” were “terms of art in 18th-century political discourse, meaning a free country or free polity.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree to disagree, if we have to quibble.  A free State of our Union, is one free from federal interference in its internal affairs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no quibbling.  YOu are being corrected for your inaccurate claims.  You keep talking about others being clueless, and yet you claim the states are the source of our guaranteed rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Yes, they are.  That is why, States are important.  They recognize and secure natural and individal rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, states are important.  I never said otherwise.  But the basic rights are listed in the US Constitution, and cannot be overruled by any state.  The US Constitution guarantees certain rights to all citizens.  The states may expand on those, but they cannot take them away.
Click to expand...


This is why most Amendments are so vague.  It's designed for the states to design it to fit themselves.  The only exception is when it's an absolute human right.  And you can't equate owning a firearm with breathing air or being locked up without due course.  It's just not the same.


----------



## WinterBorn

Daryl Hunt said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not that I expect you would read it.
> 
> The Second Amendment as an Expression of First Principles
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment is unique among the amendments in the Bill of Rights, in that it contains a preface explaining the reason for the right protected: Militias are necessary for the security of a free state. We cannot read the words “free State” here as a reference to the several states that make up the Union. The frequent use of the phrase “free State” in the founding era makes it abundantly clear that it means a non-tyrannical or non-despotic state. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in the case of _District of Columbia v. Heller_ (2008), rightly remarked that the term and its “close variations” were “terms of art in 18th-century political discourse, meaning a free country or free polity.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree to disagree, if we have to quibble.  A free State of our Union, is one free from federal interference in its internal affairs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no quibbling.  YOu are being corrected for your inaccurate claims.  You keep talking about others being clueless, and yet you claim the states are the source of our guaranteed rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Yes, they are.  That is why, States are important.  They recognize and secure natural and individal rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, states are important.  I never said otherwise.  But the basic rights are listed in the US Constitution, and cannot be overruled by any state.  The US Constitution guarantees certain rights to all citizens.  The states may expand on those, but they cannot take them away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is why most Amendments are so vague.  It's designed for the states to design it to fit themselves.  The only exception is when it's an absolute human right.  And you can't equate owning a firearm with breathing air or being locked up without due course.  It's just not the same.
Click to expand...


There are regulations restricting firearm ownership and carry.  But barring a reason to deny ownership, citizens of this country should be able to own a firearm.

As for the guarantee of not being locked up without due course, that has already been seriously damaged with the Patriot Act.

How about freedom of speech, the freedom to gather to protest, or the freedom to practice your religion?  Is owning a firearm equal to those?


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

Daryl Hunt said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not that I expect you would read it.
> 
> The Second Amendment as an Expression of First Principles
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment is unique among the amendments in the Bill of Rights, in that it contains a preface explaining the reason for the right protected: Militias are necessary for the security of a free state. We cannot read the words “free State” here as a reference to the several states that make up the Union. The frequent use of the phrase “free State” in the founding era makes it abundantly clear that it means a non-tyrannical or non-despotic state. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in the case of _District of Columbia v. Heller_ (2008), rightly remarked that the term and its “close variations” were “terms of art in 18th-century political discourse, meaning a free country or free polity.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree to disagree, if we have to quibble.  A free State of our Union, is one free from federal interference in its internal affairs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no quibbling.  YOu are being corrected for your inaccurate claims.  You keep talking about others being clueless, and yet you claim the states are the source of our guaranteed rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Yes, they are.  That is why, States are important.  They recognize and secure natural and individal rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, states are important.  I never said otherwise.  But the basic rights are listed in the US Constitution, and cannot be overruled by any state.  The US Constitution guarantees certain rights to all citizens.  The states may expand on those, but they cannot take them away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is why most Amendments are so vague.  It's designed for the states to design it to fit themselves.
Click to expand...


One thing I've noticed about you is that your nonsense grows at an even rate.

Do you make this crap up yourself, or are you on a subscription service?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I won't look at today.  I will look at the time around 1790.
> 
> *Militia Act of 1792*
> _Every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.
> _
> First we need to look at who was a Citizen in 1790s.  In the 1790s, ALL Blacks even free Blacks were prohibited from owning and carrying firearms.  All People even whites that would not swear allegiance to the newly formed United States were prohibited from owning or carrying fire arms.  Women were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms.  Bonded Slaves, even whites were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms of any kind.  It all pretty much boiled down that a Citizen was a Free White Male Land Owner deemed to be in good standing with the Existing Government both Stated and Federal Governments.  It's been estimated that only about 8% of the population from that time met the full requirement to own, possess and carry firearms legally.  Remember, more than half of the population of that time either supported the Crown or leaned heavily in that direction.  The Newly Formed Colonist Government did exactly what the British Government tried to do themselves.
> 
> There were two rebellions that made the Militia Act of 1792 to be written and adopted.  The Shays Rebellion of 1786-1787 and the Whiskey Rebellion 1791-1794.  While neither amounted to much, the founding fathers were scared to death that something else might come up that might endanger the newly formed Government so they adopted the 2nd Amendment as it was written since there was no Standing Army to prevent any decent resurrection from becoming successful.    It was left up to each state individually to provide the militias to prevent it from happening.  As long as the states agreed and didn't go to war with each other.
> 
> Using the original definition, if you don't own your House, Farm or Business and you don't completely and blindly support our current Government then are not a Citizen in Good Standings and will not be afforded the right to own, posses or carry any form of Firearms.  Oh, and you must be a Free White Male as well.
> 
> 
> 
> Not that I expect you would read it.
> 
> The Second Amendment as an Expression of First Principles
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment is unique among the amendments in the Bill of Rights, in that it contains a preface explaining the reason for the right protected: Militias are necessary for the security of a free state. We cannot read the words “free State” here as a reference to the several states that make up the Union. The frequent use of the phrase “free State” in the founding era makes it abundantly clear that it means a non-tyrannical or non-despotic state. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in the case of _District of Columbia v. Heller_ (2008), rightly remarked that the term and its “close variations” were “terms of art in 18th-century political discourse, meaning a free country or free polity.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree to disagree, if we have to quibble.  A free State of our Union, is one free from federal interference in its internal affairs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no quibbling.  YOu are being corrected for your inaccurate claims.  You keep talking about others being clueless, and yet you claim the states are the source of our guaranteed rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Yes, they are.  That is why, States are important.  They recognize and secure natural and individal rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, states are important.  I never said otherwise.  But the basic rights are listed in the US Constitution, and cannot be overruled by any state.  The US Constitution guarantees certain rights to all citizens.  The states may expand on those, but they cannot take them away.
Click to expand...

The context and terms of our Second Amendment are plural and collective not individual or singular; it is, our supreme law of the land.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not that I expect you would read it.
> 
> The Second Amendment as an Expression of First Principles
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment is unique among the amendments in the Bill of Rights, in that it contains a preface explaining the reason for the right protected: Militias are necessary for the security of a free state. We cannot read the words “free State” here as a reference to the several states that make up the Union. The frequent use of the phrase “free State” in the founding era makes it abundantly clear that it means a non-tyrannical or non-despotic state. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in the case of _District of Columbia v. Heller_ (2008), rightly remarked that the term and its “close variations” were “terms of art in 18th-century political discourse, meaning a free country or free polity.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree to disagree, if we have to quibble.  A free State of our Union, is one free from federal interference in its internal affairs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no quibbling.  YOu are being corrected for your inaccurate claims.  You keep talking about others being clueless, and yet you claim the states are the source of our guaranteed rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Yes, they are.  That is why, States are important.  They recognize and secure natural and individal rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, states are important.  I never said otherwise.  But the basic rights are listed in the US Constitution, and cannot be overruled by any state.  The US Constitution guarantees certain rights to all citizens.  The states may expand on those, but they cannot take them away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The context and terms of our Second Amendment are plural and collective not individual or singular; it is, our supreme law of the land.
Click to expand...


And you have never shown how you determine that it is collective.   Plural is a given, since the individual right is for an entire population.  But collective?  How do you make that determination?   (granted, you have never answered that question, so I don't expect you will this time)


----------



## Darkwind

danielpalos said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I won't look at today.  I will look at the time around 1790.
> 
> *Militia Act of 1792*
> _Every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.
> _
> First we need to look at who was a Citizen in 1790s.  In the 1790s, ALL Blacks even free Blacks were prohibited from owning and carrying firearms.  All People even whites that would not swear allegiance to the newly formed United States were prohibited from owning or carrying fire arms.  Women were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms.  Bonded Slaves, even whites were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms of any kind.  It all pretty much boiled down that a Citizen was a Free White Male Land Owner deemed to be in good standing with the Existing Government both Stated and Federal Governments.  It's been estimated that only about 8% of the population from that time met the full requirement to own, possess and carry firearms legally.  Remember, more than half of the population of that time either supported the Crown or leaned heavily in that direction.  The Newly Formed Colonist Government did exactly what the British Government tried to do themselves.
> 
> There were two rebellions that made the Militia Act of 1792 to be written and adopted.  The Shays Rebellion of 1786-1787 and the Whiskey Rebellion 1791-1794.  While neither amounted to much, the founding fathers were scared to death that something else might come up that might endanger the newly formed Government so they adopted the 2nd Amendment as it was written since there was no Standing Army to prevent any decent resurrection from becoming successful.    It was left up to each state individually to provide the militias to prevent it from happening.  As long as the states agreed and didn't go to war with each other.
> 
> Using the original definition, if you don't own your House, Farm or Business and you don't completely and blindly support our current Government then are not a Citizen in Good Standings and will not be afforded the right to own, posses or carry any form of Firearms.  Oh, and you must be a Free White Male as well.
> 
> 
> 
> Not that I expect you would read it.
> 
> The Second Amendment as an Expression of First Principles
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment is unique among the amendments in the Bill of Rights, in that it contains a preface explaining the reason for the right protected: Militias are necessary for the security of a free state. We cannot read the words “free State” here as a reference to the several states that make up the Union. The frequent use of the phrase “free State” in the founding era makes it abundantly clear that it means a non-tyrannical or non-despotic state. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in the case of _District of Columbia v. Heller_ (2008), rightly remarked that the term and its “close variations” were “terms of art in 18th-century political discourse, meaning a free country or free polity.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree to disagree, if we have to quibble.  A free State of our Union, is one free from federal interference in its internal affairs.
Click to expand...

Well, technically, the only way a federal government could not be involved in the internal affairs of the state would be for it to not exist at all.


----------



## Darkwind

danielpalos said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I won't look at today.  I will look at the time around 1790.
> 
> *Militia Act of 1792*
> _Every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.
> _
> First we need to look at who was a Citizen in 1790s.  In the 1790s, ALL Blacks even free Blacks were prohibited from owning and carrying firearms.  All People even whites that would not swear allegiance to the newly formed United States were prohibited from owning or carrying fire arms.  Women were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms.  Bonded Slaves, even whites were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms of any kind.  It all pretty much boiled down that a Citizen was a Free White Male Land Owner deemed to be in good standing with the Existing Government both Stated and Federal Governments.  It's been estimated that only about 8% of the population from that time met the full requirement to own, possess and carry firearms legally.  Remember, more than half of the population of that time either supported the Crown or leaned heavily in that direction.  The Newly Formed Colonist Government did exactly what the British Government tried to do themselves.
> 
> There were two rebellions that made the Militia Act of 1792 to be written and adopted.  The Shays Rebellion of 1786-1787 and the Whiskey Rebellion 1791-1794.  While neither amounted to much, the founding fathers were scared to death that something else might come up that might endanger the newly formed Government so they adopted the 2nd Amendment as it was written since there was no Standing Army to prevent any decent resurrection from becoming successful.    It was left up to each state individually to provide the militias to prevent it from happening.  As long as the states agreed and didn't go to war with each other.
> 
> Using the original definition, if you don't own your House, Farm or Business and you don't completely and blindly support our current Government then are not a Citizen in Good Standings and will not be afforded the right to own, posses or carry any form of Firearms.  Oh, and you must be a Free White Male as well.
> 
> 
> 
> Not that I expect you would read it.
> 
> The Second Amendment as an Expression of First Principles
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a result, they regarded what the Founders called the “rights of human nature” as an enemy of collective welfare, which should always take precedence over the rights of individuals. For Progressives then and now, the welfare of the people—not liberty—is the primary object of government, and government should always be in the hands of experts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I object to this right wing propaganda, as well.  Providing for the general welfare is a general power not a common power.  Individual Liberty really is, an individual problem not an institutional problem.  We have a Ninth Amendment.
> 
> What excuse for the denial and disparagement to our natural and individual rights, due to our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror; that, the right wing, refuses to pay for with necessary and proper tax rates?
Click to expand...

You can disagree, but the fact of the matter is, progressivism ideal is a collectivist concept and America has always been about the protection of the individual through the social contract.  BTW.  IT is NOT propaganda.  History proves that out.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> A difference without a distinction in terms of the issue.  Koresh was loaded for bear, and the bear won.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, fear the bear?
> 
> If a bear attacks, lie there and die? That is what murderers and rapists want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, muster the militia; only privateers, potentially up to no good, will "fear the bear", then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rapists appreciate your support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> are they going to muster to get well regulated or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dumbass, you expect criminals to muster for militia or to turn in their firearms?   Really?
Click to expand...

The militia will muster, criminals won't; any questions?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree to disagree, if we have to quibble.  A free State of our Union, is one free from federal interference in its internal affairs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no quibbling.  YOu are being corrected for your inaccurate claims.  You keep talking about others being clueless, and yet you claim the states are the source of our guaranteed rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Yes, they are.  That is why, States are important.  They recognize and secure natural and individal rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, states are important.  I never said otherwise.  But the basic rights are listed in the US Constitution, and cannot be overruled by any state.  The US Constitution guarantees certain rights to all citizens.  The states may expand on those, but they cannot take them away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The context and terms of our Second Amendment are plural and collective not individual or singular; it is, our supreme law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you have never shown how you determine that it is collective.   Plural is a given, since the individual right is for an entire population.  But collective?  How do you make that determination?   (granted, you have never answered that question, so I don't expect you will this time)
Click to expand...

The _militia_ and the body politic of the _People_, along with the _security needs of a free State_ are all, collective and plural; coincidence or well regulated conspiracy?


----------



## sparky

the OP is phenomenal!

~S~


----------



## danielpalos

Darkwind said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I won't look at today.  I will look at the time around 1790.
> 
> *Militia Act of 1792*
> _Every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.
> _
> First we need to look at who was a Citizen in 1790s.  In the 1790s, ALL Blacks even free Blacks were prohibited from owning and carrying firearms.  All People even whites that would not swear allegiance to the newly formed United States were prohibited from owning or carrying fire arms.  Women were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms.  Bonded Slaves, even whites were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms of any kind.  It all pretty much boiled down that a Citizen was a Free White Male Land Owner deemed to be in good standing with the Existing Government both Stated and Federal Governments.  It's been estimated that only about 8% of the population from that time met the full requirement to own, possess and carry firearms legally.  Remember, more than half of the population of that time either supported the Crown or leaned heavily in that direction.  The Newly Formed Colonist Government did exactly what the British Government tried to do themselves.
> 
> There were two rebellions that made the Militia Act of 1792 to be written and adopted.  The Shays Rebellion of 1786-1787 and the Whiskey Rebellion 1791-1794.  While neither amounted to much, the founding fathers were scared to death that something else might come up that might endanger the newly formed Government so they adopted the 2nd Amendment as it was written since there was no Standing Army to prevent any decent resurrection from becoming successful.    It was left up to each state individually to provide the militias to prevent it from happening.  As long as the states agreed and didn't go to war with each other.
> 
> Using the original definition, if you don't own your House, Farm or Business and you don't completely and blindly support our current Government then are not a Citizen in Good Standings and will not be afforded the right to own, posses or carry any form of Firearms.  Oh, and you must be a Free White Male as well.
> 
> 
> 
> Not that I expect you would read it.
> 
> The Second Amendment as an Expression of First Principles
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment is unique among the amendments in the Bill of Rights, in that it contains a preface explaining the reason for the right protected: Militias are necessary for the security of a free state. We cannot read the words “free State” here as a reference to the several states that make up the Union. The frequent use of the phrase “free State” in the founding era makes it abundantly clear that it means a non-tyrannical or non-despotic state. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in the case of _District of Columbia v. Heller_ (2008), rightly remarked that the term and its “close variations” were “terms of art in 18th-century political discourse, meaning a free country or free polity.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree to disagree, if we have to quibble.  A free State of our Union, is one free from federal interference in its internal affairs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, technically, the only way a federal government could not be involved in the internal affairs of the state would be for it to not exist at all.
Click to expand...

We have a Tenth Amendment and judicial forms of Jurisprudence.


----------



## danielpalos

Darkwind said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I won't look at today.  I will look at the time around 1790.
> 
> *Militia Act of 1792*
> _Every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.
> _
> First we need to look at who was a Citizen in 1790s.  In the 1790s, ALL Blacks even free Blacks were prohibited from owning and carrying firearms.  All People even whites that would not swear allegiance to the newly formed United States were prohibited from owning or carrying fire arms.  Women were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms.  Bonded Slaves, even whites were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms of any kind.  It all pretty much boiled down that a Citizen was a Free White Male Land Owner deemed to be in good standing with the Existing Government both Stated and Federal Governments.  It's been estimated that only about 8% of the population from that time met the full requirement to own, possess and carry firearms legally.  Remember, more than half of the population of that time either supported the Crown or leaned heavily in that direction.  The Newly Formed Colonist Government did exactly what the British Government tried to do themselves.
> 
> There were two rebellions that made the Militia Act of 1792 to be written and adopted.  The Shays Rebellion of 1786-1787 and the Whiskey Rebellion 1791-1794.  While neither amounted to much, the founding fathers were scared to death that something else might come up that might endanger the newly formed Government so they adopted the 2nd Amendment as it was written since there was no Standing Army to prevent any decent resurrection from becoming successful.    It was left up to each state individually to provide the militias to prevent it from happening.  As long as the states agreed and didn't go to war with each other.
> 
> Using the original definition, if you don't own your House, Farm or Business and you don't completely and blindly support our current Government then are not a Citizen in Good Standings and will not be afforded the right to own, posses or carry any form of Firearms.  Oh, and you must be a Free White Male as well.
> 
> 
> 
> Not that I expect you would read it.
> 
> The Second Amendment as an Expression of First Principles
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a result, they regarded what the Founders called the “rights of human nature” as an enemy of collective welfare, which should always take precedence over the rights of individuals. For Progressives then and now, the welfare of the people—not liberty—is the primary object of government, and government should always be in the hands of experts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I object to this right wing propaganda, as well.  Providing for the general welfare is a general power not a common power.  Individual Liberty really is, an individual problem not an institutional problem.  We have a Ninth Amendment.
> 
> What excuse for the denial and disparagement to our natural and individual rights, due to our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror; that, the right wing, refuses to pay for with necessary and proper tax rates?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can disagree, but the fact of the matter is, progressivism ideal is a collectivist concept and America has always been about the protection of the individual through the social contract.  BTW.  IT is NOT propaganda.  History proves that out.
Click to expand...

No, it hasn't.  It has always been about the advancement of the Body Politic--the People.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

WinterBorn said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree to disagree, if we have to quibble.  A free State of our Union, is one free from federal interference in its internal affairs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no quibbling.  YOu are being corrected for your inaccurate claims.  You keep talking about others being clueless, and yet you claim the states are the source of our guaranteed rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Yes, they are.  That is why, States are important.  They recognize and secure natural and individal rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, states are important.  I never said otherwise.  But the basic rights are listed in the US Constitution, and cannot be overruled by any state.  The US Constitution guarantees certain rights to all citizens.  The states may expand on those, but they cannot take them away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is why most Amendments are so vague.  It's designed for the states to design it to fit themselves.  The only exception is when it's an absolute human right.  And you can't equate owning a firearm with breathing air or being locked up without due course.  It's just not the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are regulations restricting firearm ownership and carry.  But barring a reason to deny ownership, citizens of this country should be able to own a firearm.
> 
> As for the guarantee of not being locked up without due course, that has already been seriously damaged with the Patriot Act.
> 
> How about freedom of speech, the freedom to gather to protest, or the freedom to practice your religion?  Is owning a firearm equal to those?
Click to expand...


A Citizen of good standings (we have  a much looser definition than 1778 of what is a citizen) does have the right to own firearms.  I don't see that changing any time soon.

I am against the Patriot Act big time.  Always have been.  It took many rights from our Citizens that it shouldn't have.  I won't go into them because we both are aware of them.

You have the right of free speech.  This is why we have things like this forum.  Of course, within reason comes into play.  Again, no real use into going into it.  You have the right to practice your religion as long as it doesn't infringe on other people.  All of these are within reason.  You also have the right to own firearms.  Again, within reason.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, fear the bear?
> 
> If a bear attacks, lie there and die? That is what murderers and rapists want.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, muster the militia; only privateers, potentially up to no good, will "fear the bear", then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rapists appreciate your support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> are they going to muster to get well regulated or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dumbass, you expect criminals to muster for militia or to turn in their firearms?   Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The militia will muster, criminals won't; any questions?
Click to expand...


None.  That answers why I demand my right to own a gun.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no quibbling.  YOu are being corrected for your inaccurate claims.  You keep talking about others being clueless, and yet you claim the states are the source of our guaranteed rights.
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  Yes, they are.  That is why, States are important.  They recognize and secure natural and individal rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, states are important.  I never said otherwise.  But the basic rights are listed in the US Constitution, and cannot be overruled by any state.  The US Constitution guarantees certain rights to all citizens.  The states may expand on those, but they cannot take them away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The context and terms of our Second Amendment are plural and collective not individual or singular; it is, our supreme law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you have never shown how you determine that it is collective.   Plural is a given, since the individual right is for an entire population.  But collective?  How do you make that determination?   (granted, you have never answered that question, so I don't expect you will this time)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The _militia_ and the body politic of the _People_, along with the _security needs of a free State_ are all, collective and plural; coincidence or well regulated conspiracy?
Click to expand...


The militia is made up of citizen soldiers.  They maintain their own weapons, but can be called upon to defend our nation if we are attacked.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I won't look at today.  I will look at the time around 1790.
> 
> *Militia Act of 1792*
> _Every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.
> _
> First we need to look at who was a Citizen in 1790s.  In the 1790s, ALL Blacks even free Blacks were prohibited from owning and carrying firearms.  All People even whites that would not swear allegiance to the newly formed United States were prohibited from owning or carrying fire arms.  Women were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms.  Bonded Slaves, even whites were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms of any kind.  It all pretty much boiled down that a Citizen was a Free White Male Land Owner deemed to be in good standing with the Existing Government both Stated and Federal Governments.  It's been estimated that only about 8% of the population from that time met the full requirement to own, possess and carry firearms legally.  Remember, more than half of the population of that time either supported the Crown or leaned heavily in that direction.  The Newly Formed Colonist Government did exactly what the British Government tried to do themselves.
> 
> There were two rebellions that made the Militia Act of 1792 to be written and adopted.  The Shays Rebellion of 1786-1787 and the Whiskey Rebellion 1791-1794.  While neither amounted to much, the founding fathers were scared to death that something else might come up that might endanger the newly formed Government so they adopted the 2nd Amendment as it was written since there was no Standing Army to prevent any decent resurrection from becoming successful.    It was left up to each state individually to provide the militias to prevent it from happening.  As long as the states agreed and didn't go to war with each other.
> 
> Using the original definition, if you don't own your House, Farm or Business and you don't completely and blindly support our current Government then are not a Citizen in Good Standings and will not be afforded the right to own, posses or carry any form of Firearms.  Oh, and you must be a Free White Male as well.
> 
> 
> 
> Not that I expect you would read it.
> 
> The Second Amendment as an Expression of First Principles
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment is unique among the amendments in the Bill of Rights, in that it contains a preface explaining the reason for the right protected: Militias are necessary for the security of a free state. We cannot read the words “free State” here as a reference to the several states that make up the Union. The frequent use of the phrase “free State” in the founding era makes it abundantly clear that it means a non-tyrannical or non-despotic state. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in the case of _District of Columbia v. Heller_ (2008), rightly remarked that the term and its “close variations” were “terms of art in 18th-century political discourse, meaning a free country or free polity.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree to disagree, if we have to quibble.  A free State of our Union, is one free from federal interference in its internal affairs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, technically, the only way a federal government could not be involved in the internal affairs of the state would be for it to not exist at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have a Tenth Amendment and judicial forms of Jurisprudence.
Click to expand...


"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."

The US Constitution guarantees the right of the people to bear arms.  That is not reserved to the States.

The judicial side was covered in Heller, which ruled that the 2nd amendment is an individual right, not connected with service in any military or militia.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I won't look at today.  I will look at the time around 1790.
> 
> *Militia Act of 1792*
> _Every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.
> _
> First we need to look at who was a Citizen in 1790s.  In the 1790s, ALL Blacks even free Blacks were prohibited from owning and carrying firearms.  All People even whites that would not swear allegiance to the newly formed United States were prohibited from owning or carrying fire arms.  Women were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms.  Bonded Slaves, even whites were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms of any kind.  It all pretty much boiled down that a Citizen was a Free White Male Land Owner deemed to be in good standing with the Existing Government both Stated and Federal Governments.  It's been estimated that only about 8% of the population from that time met the full requirement to own, possess and carry firearms legally.  Remember, more than half of the population of that time either supported the Crown or leaned heavily in that direction.  The Newly Formed Colonist Government did exactly what the British Government tried to do themselves.
> 
> There were two rebellions that made the Militia Act of 1792 to be written and adopted.  The Shays Rebellion of 1786-1787 and the Whiskey Rebellion 1791-1794.  While neither amounted to much, the founding fathers were scared to death that something else might come up that might endanger the newly formed Government so they adopted the 2nd Amendment as it was written since there was no Standing Army to prevent any decent resurrection from becoming successful.    It was left up to each state individually to provide the militias to prevent it from happening.  As long as the states agreed and didn't go to war with each other.
> 
> Using the original definition, if you don't own your House, Farm or Business and you don't completely and blindly support our current Government then are not a Citizen in Good Standings and will not be afforded the right to own, posses or carry any form of Firearms.  Oh, and you must be a Free White Male as well.
> 
> 
> 
> Not that I expect you would read it.
> 
> The Second Amendment as an Expression of First Principles
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a result, they regarded what the Founders called the “rights of human nature” as an enemy of collective welfare, which should always take precedence over the rights of individuals. For Progressives then and now, the welfare of the people—not liberty—is the primary object of government, and government should always be in the hands of experts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I object to this right wing propaganda, as well.  Providing for the general welfare is a general power not a common power.  Individual Liberty really is, an individual problem not an institutional problem.  We have a Ninth Amendment.
> 
> What excuse for the denial and disparagement to our natural and individual rights, due to our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror; that, the right wing, refuses to pay for with necessary and proper tax rates?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can disagree, but the fact of the matter is, progressivism ideal is a collectivist concept and America has always been about the protection of the individual through the social contract.  BTW.  IT is NOT propaganda.  History proves that out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it hasn't.  It has always been about the advancement of the Body Politic--the People.
Click to expand...


No, it has been about protecting the rights of the individual.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  Yes, they are.  That is why, States are important.  They recognize and secure natural and individal rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, states are important.  I never said otherwise.  But the basic rights are listed in the US Constitution, and cannot be overruled by any state.  The US Constitution guarantees certain rights to all citizens.  The states may expand on those, but they cannot take them away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The context and terms of our Second Amendment are plural and collective not individual or singular; it is, our supreme law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you have never shown how you determine that it is collective.   Plural is a given, since the individual right is for an entire population.  But collective?  How do you make that determination?   (granted, you have never answered that question, so I don't expect you will this time)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The _militia_ and the body politic of the _People_, along with the _security needs of a free State_ are all, collective and plural; coincidence or well regulated conspiracy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The militia is made up of citizen soldiers.  They maintain their own weapons, but can be called upon to defend our nation if we are attacked.
Click to expand...


I agree when it was before the weapons costs so danged much.  You could afford anything the Military could except for artillery.  And if you were rich enough, you could afford even an artillery piece or two as well.  After 1850, the cost of war went up exponentially.  All of a sudden, the Gatlin was introduced, followed closely by the Hotchkin Canon, the Rocket Launchers, Aerial Bombs, Mortars, Howitzers and more.  The cost of war outstripped even the richest people.  Only Governments could afford those expenditures.  It was back to the days where the King was the only one that could afford to outfit his Knights with the proper equipment to wage war.  Without even knowing it, the 2nd amendment included something about an Organized Militia where the State would equip it's own Army.  The State could afford many of the weapons or war far beyond the individual.  What they didn't foresee was the power and the cost of the weapons to even outstrip anything even the State could afford.  Now,only the Federals can afford these weapons by pooling all the States Funds together.  If a State were to put together an Organized Militia from the weapons you had and the weapons it actually owned it would not be able to stand the first battle with the Federals.  The National  Guard's Weapons aren't owned by the State, they are owned by the Feds.

Now, where does that leave the first half of the 2nd amendment?


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, fear the bear?
> 
> If a bear attacks, lie there and die? That is what murderers and rapists want.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, muster the militia; only privateers, potentially up to no good, will "fear the bear", then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rapists appreciate your support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> are they going to muster to get well regulated or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dumbass, you expect criminals to muster for militia or to turn in their firearms?   Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The militia will muster, criminals won't; any questions?
Click to expand...


Aside from concerns about your sanity, no.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, muster the militia; only privateers, potentially up to no good, will "fear the bear", then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rapists appreciate your support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> are they going to muster to get well regulated or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dumbass, you expect criminals to muster for militia or to turn in their firearms?   Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The militia will muster, criminals won't; any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None.  That answers why I demand my right to own a gun.
Click to expand...

Has nothing to do with our Second Amendment; natural and individual and singular rights are recognized in our State Constitutions.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  Yes, they are.  That is why, States are important.  They recognize and secure natural and individal rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, states are important.  I never said otherwise.  But the basic rights are listed in the US Constitution, and cannot be overruled by any state.  The US Constitution guarantees certain rights to all citizens.  The states may expand on those, but they cannot take them away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The context and terms of our Second Amendment are plural and collective not individual or singular; it is, our supreme law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you have never shown how you determine that it is collective.   Plural is a given, since the individual right is for an entire population.  But collective?  How do you make that determination?   (granted, you have never answered that question, so I don't expect you will this time)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The _militia_ and the body politic of the _People_, along with the _security needs of a free State_ are all, collective and plural; coincidence or well regulated conspiracy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The militia is made up of citizen soldiers.  They maintain their own weapons, but can be called upon to defend our nation if we are attacked.
Click to expand...

nothing but diversion?  all of those terms are collective and plural.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I won't look at today.  I will look at the time around 1790.
> 
> *Militia Act of 1792*
> _Every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.
> _
> First we need to look at who was a Citizen in 1790s.  In the 1790s, ALL Blacks even free Blacks were prohibited from owning and carrying firearms.  All People even whites that would not swear allegiance to the newly formed United States were prohibited from owning or carrying fire arms.  Women were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms.  Bonded Slaves, even whites were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms of any kind.  It all pretty much boiled down that a Citizen was a Free White Male Land Owner deemed to be in good standing with the Existing Government both Stated and Federal Governments.  It's been estimated that only about 8% of the population from that time met the full requirement to own, possess and carry firearms legally.  Remember, more than half of the population of that time either supported the Crown or leaned heavily in that direction.  The Newly Formed Colonist Government did exactly what the British Government tried to do themselves.
> 
> There were two rebellions that made the Militia Act of 1792 to be written and adopted.  The Shays Rebellion of 1786-1787 and the Whiskey Rebellion 1791-1794.  While neither amounted to much, the founding fathers were scared to death that something else might come up that might endanger the newly formed Government so they adopted the 2nd Amendment as it was written since there was no Standing Army to prevent any decent resurrection from becoming successful.    It was left up to each state individually to provide the militias to prevent it from happening.  As long as the states agreed and didn't go to war with each other.
> 
> Using the original definition, if you don't own your House, Farm or Business and you don't completely and blindly support our current Government then are not a Citizen in Good Standings and will not be afforded the right to own, posses or carry any form of Firearms.  Oh, and you must be a Free White Male as well.
> 
> 
> 
> Not that I expect you would read it.
> 
> The Second Amendment as an Expression of First Principles
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment is unique among the amendments in the Bill of Rights, in that it contains a preface explaining the reason for the right protected: Militias are necessary for the security of a free state. We cannot read the words “free State” here as a reference to the several states that make up the Union. The frequent use of the phrase “free State” in the founding era makes it abundantly clear that it means a non-tyrannical or non-despotic state. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in the case of _District of Columbia v. Heller_ (2008), rightly remarked that the term and its “close variations” were “terms of art in 18th-century political discourse, meaning a free country or free polity.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree to disagree, if we have to quibble.  A free State of our Union, is one free from federal interference in its internal affairs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, technically, the only way a federal government could not be involved in the internal affairs of the state would be for it to not exist at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have a Tenth Amendment and judicial forms of Jurisprudence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "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."
> 
> The US Constitution guarantees the right of the people to bear arms.  That is not reserved to the States.
> 
> The judicial side was covered in Heller, which ruled that the 2nd amendment is an individual right, not connected with service in any military or militia.
Click to expand...

States are sovereign, within their jurisdiction.  Only well regulated militia, being Necessary to the security of a free State, may not be Infringed when being Necessary to the security of their free State.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I won't look at today.  I will look at the time around 1790.
> 
> *Militia Act of 1792*
> _Every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.
> _
> First we need to look at who was a Citizen in 1790s.  In the 1790s, ALL Blacks even free Blacks were prohibited from owning and carrying firearms.  All People even whites that would not swear allegiance to the newly formed United States were prohibited from owning or carrying fire arms.  Women were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms.  Bonded Slaves, even whites were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms of any kind.  It all pretty much boiled down that a Citizen was a Free White Male Land Owner deemed to be in good standing with the Existing Government both Stated and Federal Governments.  It's been estimated that only about 8% of the population from that time met the full requirement to own, possess and carry firearms legally.  Remember, more than half of the population of that time either supported the Crown or leaned heavily in that direction.  The Newly Formed Colonist Government did exactly what the British Government tried to do themselves.
> 
> There were two rebellions that made the Militia Act of 1792 to be written and adopted.  The Shays Rebellion of 1786-1787 and the Whiskey Rebellion 1791-1794.  While neither amounted to much, the founding fathers were scared to death that something else might come up that might endanger the newly formed Government so they adopted the 2nd Amendment as it was written since there was no Standing Army to prevent any decent resurrection from becoming successful.    It was left up to each state individually to provide the militias to prevent it from happening.  As long as the states agreed and didn't go to war with each other.
> 
> Using the original definition, if you don't own your House, Farm or Business and you don't completely and blindly support our current Government then are not a Citizen in Good Standings and will not be afforded the right to own, posses or carry any form of Firearms.  Oh, and you must be a Free White Male as well.
> 
> 
> 
> Not that I expect you would read it.
> 
> The Second Amendment as an Expression of First Principles
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a result, they regarded what the Founders called the “rights of human nature” as an enemy of collective welfare, which should always take precedence over the rights of individuals. For Progressives then and now, the welfare of the people—not liberty—is the primary object of government, and government should always be in the hands of experts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I object to this right wing propaganda, as well.  Providing for the general welfare is a general power not a common power.  Individual Liberty really is, an individual problem not an institutional problem.  We have a Ninth Amendment.
> 
> What excuse for the denial and disparagement to our natural and individual rights, due to our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror; that, the right wing, refuses to pay for with necessary and proper tax rates?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can disagree, but the fact of the matter is, progressivism ideal is a collectivist concept and America has always been about the protection of the individual through the social contract.  BTW.  IT is NOT propaganda.  History proves that out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it hasn't.  It has always been about the advancement of the Body Politic--the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it has been about protecting the rights of the individual.
Click to expand...

Civil rights of the _People_. 

actual words matter, in our federal and American express, Constitution.


----------



## danielpalos

Billy_Kinetta said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, muster the militia; only privateers, potentially up to no good, will "fear the bear", then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rapists appreciate your support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> are they going to muster to get well regulated or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dumbass, you expect criminals to muster for militia or to turn in their firearms?   Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The militia will muster, criminals won't; any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aside from concerns about your sanity, no.
Click to expand...

I resort to the fewest fallacies; to account for that dilemma.  Unlike the right wing.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rapists appreciate your support.
> 
> 
> 
> are they going to muster to get well regulated or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dumbass, you expect criminals to muster for militia or to turn in their firearms?   Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The militia will muster, criminals won't; any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None.  That answers why I demand my right to own a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Has nothing to do with our Second Amendment; natural and individual and singular rights are recognized in our State Constitutions.
Click to expand...


The right to bear arms is recognized in our US Constitution, which is superior to any state constitution.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, states are important.  I never said otherwise.  But the basic rights are listed in the US Constitution, and cannot be overruled by any state.  The US Constitution guarantees certain rights to all citizens.  The states may expand on those, but they cannot take them away.
> 
> 
> 
> The context and terms of our Second Amendment are plural and collective not individual or singular; it is, our supreme law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you have never shown how you determine that it is collective.   Plural is a given, since the individual right is for an entire population.  But collective?  How do you make that determination?   (granted, you have never answered that question, so I don't expect you will this time)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The _militia_ and the body politic of the _People_, along with the _security needs of a free State_ are all, collective and plural; coincidence or well regulated conspiracy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The militia is made up of citizen soldiers.  They maintain their own weapons, but can be called upon to defend our nation if we are attacked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nothing but diversion?  all of those terms are collective and plural.
Click to expand...


Collective?   You have yet to defend your reasoning behind insisting it is a collective right.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not that I expect you would read it.
> 
> The Second Amendment as an Expression of First Principles
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a result, they regarded what the Founders called the “rights of human nature” as an enemy of collective welfare, which should always take precedence over the rights of individuals. For Progressives then and now, the welfare of the people—not liberty—is the primary object of government, and government should always be in the hands of experts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I object to this right wing propaganda, as well.  Providing for the general welfare is a general power not a common power.  Individual Liberty really is, an individual problem not an institutional problem.  We have a Ninth Amendment.
> 
> What excuse for the denial and disparagement to our natural and individual rights, due to our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror; that, the right wing, refuses to pay for with necessary and proper tax rates?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can disagree, but the fact of the matter is, progressivism ideal is a collectivist concept and America has always been about the protection of the individual through the social contract.  BTW.  IT is NOT propaganda.  History proves that out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it hasn't.  It has always been about the advancement of the Body Politic--the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it has been about protecting the rights of the individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Civil rights of the _People_.
> 
> actual words matter, in our federal and American express, Constitution.
Click to expand...


Yes they do.   If we protect the rights of 10 citizens, are we protecting the right of a person or of people?


----------



## Wry Catcher

Billy_Kinetta said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The security of a free State to its well regulated militia, is a States' sovereign right.  It says so in our Second Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WTF?
> 
> In the part of the constitution (the bill of rights) that expresses the rights of the INDIVIDUAL, they decided to lump in that A STATE HAS THE RIGHT TO FORM A MILITIA?
> 
> That makes absolutely ZERO sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You make zero sense.  The actual words in our Second Amendment clearly declare what is Necessary to the security of a free State; it is mostly definitely not, the whole and entire concept of natural and individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is you who are confused.  So that the State CAN remain free, it is essential that the natural Right of defense be acknowledged.  Firearms ownership by the PEOPLE is how that is maintained.  Not the government, the PEOPLE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you follow current events?  Imagine small arms held by the Syrian People, against the 20th Century war planes dropping ordinance and chemical weapons.  Whose winning those engagements?
> 
> Then consider the effect if citizens could own the arms capable of engaging a 21st century military force in the US?   In my opinion, having served on a Destroyer in the late 60's, how that vessel would have done against the 21st Century Navy - not well and not for long.
> 
> Your reasoning is absurd.  Today the cost and size of our military, and the training, cannot be defeated or even slowed by a civilian force, and even if the arms of war were legal in the US.  Have you thought about how these arms might be used in small engagements against the civilian population (think criminal gangs).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You people keep assuming the US Military would be on YOUR side.
> 
> Amusing.
Click to expand...


That is more than an assumption.  However, if the President of the United States gave the order for a mob to take over civilian authority, we would face a real crisis - Constitutional and worse, civil war.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

WinterBorn said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The security of a free State to its well regulated militia, is a States' sovereign right.  It says so in our Second Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WTF?
> 
> In the part of the constitution (the bill of rights) that expresses the rights of the INDIVIDUAL, they decided to lump in that A STATE HAS THE RIGHT TO FORM A MILITIA?
> 
> That makes absolutely ZERO sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You make zero sense.  The actual words in our Second Amendment clearly declare what is Necessary to the security of a free State; it is mostly definitely not, the whole and entire concept of natural and individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is you who are confused.  So that the State CAN remain free, it is essential that the natural Right of defense be acknowledged.  Firearms ownership by the PEOPLE is how that is maintained.  Not the government, the PEOPLE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you follow current events?  Imagine small arms held by the Syrian People, against the 20th Century war planes dropping ordinance and chemical weapons.  Whose winning those engagements?
> 
> Then consider the effect if citizens could own the arms capable of engaging a 21st century military force in the US?   In my opinion, having served on a Destroyer in the late 60's, how that vessel would have done against the 21st Century Navy - not well and not for long.
> 
> Your reasoning is absurd.  Today the cost and size of our military, and the training, cannot be defeated or even slowed by a civilian force, and even if the arms of war were legal in the US.  Have you thought about how these arms might be used in small engagements against the civilian population (think criminal gangs).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I think an armed civilian population could fare reasonably well against our gov't.   First of all, you are correct that our military could decimate a population armed with small arms.  But would they be able to do so without decimating the entire civilian population?   Remember the uproar when our military shot up unarmed civilians in Iraq?   Now imagine that being US citizens.  The armed population would blend in with the rest of the population.   It would not be a matter of defeating the US military, but doing enough damage to force them to engage and then take enough damage to force public opinion into the equation.
Click to expand...

Disagree.

An armed civilian population would fare poorly against the US military.

And as we demonstrated during the Civil War, Americans have no problem slaughtering their fellow Americans in large numbers.

Otherwise, there is nothing in the text, history, or case law of the Second Amendment that authorizes citizens who subjectively perceive the government to have become ‘tyrannical’ to take up arms against a duly and lawfully elected government representing the will of the majority of the American people – the Second Amendment doesn’t ‘trump’ the First Amendment, the people have the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances through the political or judicial process, not by force of arms.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Wry Catcher said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> WTF?
> 
> In the part of the constitution (the bill of rights) that expresses the rights of the INDIVIDUAL, they decided to lump in that A STATE HAS THE RIGHT TO FORM A MILITIA?
> 
> That makes absolutely ZERO sense.
> 
> 
> 
> You make zero sense.  The actual words in our Second Amendment clearly declare what is Necessary to the security of a free State; it is mostly definitely not, the whole and entire concept of natural and individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is you who are confused.  So that the State CAN remain free, it is essential that the natural Right of defense be acknowledged.  Firearms ownership by the PEOPLE is how that is maintained.  Not the government, the PEOPLE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you follow current events?  Imagine small arms held by the Syrian People, against the 20th Century war planes dropping ordinance and chemical weapons.  Whose winning those engagements?
> 
> Then consider the effect if citizens could own the arms capable of engaging a 21st century military force in the US?   In my opinion, having served on a Destroyer in the late 60's, how that vessel would have done against the 21st Century Navy - not well and not for long.
> 
> Your reasoning is absurd.  Today the cost and size of our military, and the training, cannot be defeated or even slowed by a civilian force, and even if the arms of war were legal in the US.  Have you thought about how these arms might be used in small engagements against the civilian population (think criminal gangs).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You people keep assuming the US Military would be on YOUR side.
> 
> Amusing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is more than an assumption.  However, if the President of the United States gave the order for a mob to take over civilian authority, we would face a real crisis - Constitutional and worse, civil war.
Click to expand...


I can only think of one reason the President of the United States would try and get the "Mob" or "Unorganized" Militia to take over Civilian Authority and that would be if the US Military decided to sit down.  And that would happen if he started giving orders contrary to the US Constitution and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.  The Military would do nothing.  They would leave it up to Congress or the Staff to correct the situation by either bringing the President back into legal or removing him from office.  They would help and restore order for the new President though if called upon by the new President and Congress by supporting the Civilian Authorities in a support function.  They would not take up arms against US Citizens unless there really was a Civil War.  

I know, the nutcases think the Military would splinter.  It wouldn't.  It is there to defend against all enemies of the Constitution both foreign and domestic.  Anyone trying to do a civil war would definitely be an enemy of the United States Constitution.  Even if some left, they would leave without the heavy weapons.  Maybe some would leave with sidearms but that's about it.  And that would not be enough to stand against the National Guard with it's heavy weapons.  Plus, mixing with the "Unorganized" Militia, the discipline would be terrible.  Take it from me, more than one battle has been won by the smaller force that showed more discipline.  But in this case, it would be the larger force showing the highest discipline.  The US is well past having a blood and guts "Revolution".  Our version of Revolution happens once every 2 to 4 years.  We just went through 4 years of Revolution and it looks like we are in for another 4 years of bloodless Revolution.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

WinterBorn said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree to disagree, if we have to quibble.  A free State of our Union, is one free from federal interference in its internal affairs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no quibbling.  YOu are being corrected for your inaccurate claims.  You keep talking about others being clueless, and yet you claim the states are the source of our guaranteed rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Yes, they are.  That is why, States are important.  They recognize and secure natural and individal rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, states are important.  I never said otherwise.  But the basic rights are listed in the US Constitution, and cannot be overruled by any state.  The US Constitution guarantees certain rights to all citizens.  The states may expand on those, but they cannot take them away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is why most Amendments are so vague.  It's designed for the states to design it to fit themselves.  The only exception is when it's an absolute human right.  And you can't equate owning a firearm with breathing air or being locked up without due course.  It's just not the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are regulations restricting firearm ownership and carry.  But barring a reason to deny ownership, citizens of this country should be able to own a firearm.
> 
> As for the guarantee of not being locked up without due course, that has already been seriously damaged with the Patriot Act.
> 
> How about freedom of speech, the freedom to gather to protest, or the freedom to practice your religion?  Is owning a firearm equal to those?
Click to expand...

That’s what we’re waiting for the Supreme Court to determine.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

Wry Catcher said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> WTF?
> 
> In the part of the constitution (the bill of rights) that expresses the rights of the INDIVIDUAL, they decided to lump in that A STATE HAS THE RIGHT TO FORM A MILITIA?
> 
> That makes absolutely ZERO sense.
> 
> 
> 
> You make zero sense.  The actual words in our Second Amendment clearly declare what is Necessary to the security of a free State; it is mostly definitely not, the whole and entire concept of natural and individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is you who are confused.  So that the State CAN remain free, it is essential that the natural Right of defense be acknowledged.  Firearms ownership by the PEOPLE is how that is maintained.  Not the government, the PEOPLE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you follow current events?  Imagine small arms held by the Syrian People, against the 20th Century war planes dropping ordinance and chemical weapons.  Whose winning those engagements?
> 
> Then consider the effect if citizens could own the arms capable of engaging a 21st century military force in the US?   In my opinion, having served on a Destroyer in the late 60's, how that vessel would have done against the 21st Century Navy - not well and not for long.
> 
> Your reasoning is absurd.  Today the cost and size of our military, and the training, cannot be defeated or even slowed by a civilian force, and even if the arms of war were legal in the US.  Have you thought about how these arms might be used in small engagements against the civilian population (think criminal gangs).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You people keep assuming the US Military would be on YOUR side.
> 
> Amusing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is more than an assumption.  However, if the President of the United States gave the order for a mob to take over civilian authority, we would face a real crisis - Constitutional and worse, civil war.
Click to expand...


Non sequitur.  Please make sense so that I can respond.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no quibbling.  YOu are being corrected for your inaccurate claims.  You keep talking about others being clueless, and yet you claim the states are the source of our guaranteed rights.
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  Yes, they are.  That is why, States are important.  They recognize and secure natural and individal rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, states are important.  I never said otherwise.  But the basic rights are listed in the US Constitution, and cannot be overruled by any state.  The US Constitution guarantees certain rights to all citizens.  The states may expand on those, but they cannot take them away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is why most Amendments are so vague.  It's designed for the states to design it to fit themselves.  The only exception is when it's an absolute human right.  And you can't equate owning a firearm with breathing air or being locked up without due course.  It's just not the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are regulations restricting firearm ownership and carry.  But barring a reason to deny ownership, citizens of this country should be able to own a firearm.
> 
> As for the guarantee of not being locked up without due course, that has already been seriously damaged with the Patriot Act.
> 
> How about freedom of speech, the freedom to gather to protest, or the freedom to practice your religion?  Is owning a firearm equal to those?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s what we’re waiting for the Supreme Court to determine.
Click to expand...


Already determined.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> WTF?
> 
> In the part of the constitution (the bill of rights) that expresses the rights of the INDIVIDUAL, they decided to lump in that A STATE HAS THE RIGHT TO FORM A MILITIA?
> 
> That makes absolutely ZERO sense.
> 
> 
> 
> You make zero sense.  The actual words in our Second Amendment clearly declare what is Necessary to the security of a free State; it is mostly definitely not, the whole and entire concept of natural and individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is you who are confused.  So that the State CAN remain free, it is essential that the natural Right of defense be acknowledged.  Firearms ownership by the PEOPLE is how that is maintained.  Not the government, the PEOPLE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you follow current events?  Imagine small arms held by the Syrian People, against the 20th Century war planes dropping ordinance and chemical weapons.  Whose winning those engagements?
> 
> Then consider the effect if citizens could own the arms capable of engaging a 21st century military force in the US?   In my opinion, having served on a Destroyer in the late 60's, how that vessel would have done against the 21st Century Navy - not well and not for long.
> 
> Your reasoning is absurd.  Today the cost and size of our military, and the training, cannot be defeated or even slowed by a civilian force, and even if the arms of war were legal in the US.  Have you thought about how these arms might be used in small engagements against the civilian population (think criminal gangs).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I think an armed civilian population could fare reasonably well against our gov't.   First of all, you are correct that our military could decimate a population armed with small arms.  But would they be able to do so without decimating the entire civilian population?   Remember the uproar when our military shot up unarmed civilians in Iraq?   Now imagine that being US citizens.  The armed population would blend in with the rest of the population.   It would not be a matter of defeating the US military, but doing enough damage to force them to engage and then take enough damage to force public opinion into the equation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Disagree.
> 
> An armed civilian population would fare poorly against the US military.
> 
> And as we demonstrated during the Civil War, Americans have no problem slaughtering their fellow Americans in large numbers.
> 
> Otherwise, there is nothing in the text, history, or case law of the Second Amendment that authorizes citizens who subjectively perceive the government to have become ‘tyrannical’ to take up arms against a duly and lawfully elected government representing the will of the majority of the American people – the Second Amendment doesn’t ‘trump’ the First Amendment, the people have the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances through the political or judicial process, not by force of arms.
Click to expand...


And if that process does not respond?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> are they going to muster to get well regulated or not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dumbass, you expect criminals to muster for militia or to turn in their firearms?   Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The militia will muster, criminals won't; any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None.  That answers why I demand my right to own a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Has nothing to do with our Second Amendment; natural and individual and singular rights are recognized in our State Constitutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to bear arms is recognized in our US Constitution, which is superior to any state constitution.
Click to expand...

lol.  Only the unorganized militia whines about gun control.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The context and terms of our Second Amendment are plural and collective not individual or singular; it is, our supreme law of the land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you have never shown how you determine that it is collective.   Plural is a given, since the individual right is for an entire population.  But collective?  How do you make that determination?   (granted, you have never answered that question, so I don't expect you will this time)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The _militia_ and the body politic of the _People_, along with the _security needs of a free State_ are all, collective and plural; coincidence or well regulated conspiracy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The militia is made up of citizen soldiers.  They maintain their own weapons, but can be called upon to defend our nation if we are attacked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nothing but diversion?  all of those terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Collective?   You have yet to defend your reasoning behind insisting it is a collective right.
Click to expand...

it is self evident.  both terms militia and the people are collective and plural as is the context regarding the security of a free State.

Only the clueless and Causeless right wing, never gets it.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I object to this right wing propaganda, as well.  Providing for the general welfare is a general power not a common power.  Individual Liberty really is, an individual problem not an institutional problem.  We have a Ninth Amendment.
> 
> What excuse for the denial and disparagement to our natural and individual rights, due to our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror; that, the right wing, refuses to pay for with necessary and proper tax rates?
> 
> 
> 
> You can disagree, but the fact of the matter is, progressivism ideal is a collectivist concept and America has always been about the protection of the individual through the social contract.  BTW.  IT is NOT propaganda.  History proves that out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it hasn't.  It has always been about the advancement of the Body Politic--the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it has been about protecting the rights of the individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Civil rights of the _People_.
> 
> actual words matter, in our federal and American express, Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes they do.   If we protect the rights of 10 citizens, are we protecting the right of a person or of people?
Click to expand...

The People, if we have to quibble rights in our federal Constitution.


----------



## Markle

Daryl Hunt said:


> This is why most Amendments are so vague. It's designed for the states to design it to fit themselves. The only exception is when it's an absolute human right. And you can't equate owning a firearm with breathing air or being locked up without due course. It's just not the same.



No, the amendments and the Constitution are very specific.  The fact that, as a far left Progressive, you loathe those documents does not make them vague except in your own mind.


----------



## Markle

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you have never shown how you determine that it is collective.   Plural is a given, since the individual right is for an entire population.  But collective?  How do you make that determination?   (granted, you have never answered that question, so I don't expect you will this time)
> 
> 
> 
> The _militia_ and the body politic of the _People_, along with the _security needs of a free State_ are all, collective and plural; coincidence or well regulated conspiracy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The militia is made up of citizen soldiers.  They maintain their own weapons, but can be called upon to defend our nation if we are attacked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nothing but diversion?  all of those terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Collective?   You have yet to defend your reasoning behind insisting it is a collective right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is self evident.  both terms militia and the people are collective and plural as is the context regarding the security of a free State.
> 
> Only the clueless and Causeless right wing, never gets it.
Click to expand...


----------



## danielpalos

Markle said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The _militia_ and the body politic of the _People_, along with the _security needs of a free State_ are all, collective and plural; coincidence or well regulated conspiracy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The militia is made up of citizen soldiers.  They maintain their own weapons, but can be called upon to defend our nation if we are attacked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nothing but diversion?  all of those terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Collective?   You have yet to defend your reasoning behind insisting it is a collective right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is self evident.  both terms militia and the people are collective and plural as is the context regarding the security of a free State.
> 
> Only the clueless and Causeless right wing, never gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Our Founding Fathers did an most Excellent job at the convention with our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.  Our Second Amendment says the same thing, with or without any punctuation, "on the right wing".


----------



## Markle

danielpalos said:


> ur Founding Fathers did an most Excellent job at the convention with our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land. *Our Second Amendment says the same thing, with or without any punctuation, "on the right wing".*



Who could make this up?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dumbass, you expect criminals to muster for militia or to turn in their firearms?   Really?
> 
> 
> 
> The militia will muster, criminals won't; any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None.  That answers why I demand my right to own a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Has nothing to do with our Second Amendment; natural and individual and singular rights are recognized in our State Constitutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to bear arms is recognized in our US Constitution, which is superior to any state constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Only the unorganized militia whines about gun control.
Click to expand...


If someone believes a gov't action to be unconstitutional, they SHOULD speak up.  At least they are aware of whether the US Constitution or a state constitution is more powerful.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you have never shown how you determine that it is collective.   Plural is a given, since the individual right is for an entire population.  But collective?  How do you make that determination?   (granted, you have never answered that question, so I don't expect you will this time)
> 
> 
> 
> The _militia_ and the body politic of the _People_, along with the _security needs of a free State_ are all, collective and plural; coincidence or well regulated conspiracy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The militia is made up of citizen soldiers.  They maintain their own weapons, but can be called upon to defend our nation if we are attacked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nothing but diversion?  all of those terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Collective?   You have yet to defend your reasoning behind insisting it is a collective right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is self evident.  both terms militia and the people are collective and plural as is the context regarding the security of a free State.
> 
> Only the clueless and Causeless right wing, never gets it.
Click to expand...


No, it is not self evident.  There is nothing in the 2nd amendment that supports the idea that it is a collective right.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no quibbling.  YOu are being corrected for your inaccurate claims.  You keep talking about others being clueless, and yet you claim the states are the source of our guaranteed rights.
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  Yes, they are.  That is why, States are important.  They recognize and secure natural and individal rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, states are important.  I never said otherwise.  But the basic rights are listed in the US Constitution, and cannot be overruled by any state.  The US Constitution guarantees certain rights to all citizens.  The states may expand on those, but they cannot take them away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is why most Amendments are so vague.  It's designed for the states to design it to fit themselves.  The only exception is when it's an absolute human right.  And you can't equate owning a firearm with breathing air or being locked up without due course.  It's just not the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are regulations restricting firearm ownership and carry.  But barring a reason to deny ownership, citizens of this country should be able to own a firearm.
> 
> As for the guarantee of not being locked up without due course, that has already been seriously damaged with the Patriot Act.
> 
> How about freedom of speech, the freedom to gather to protest, or the freedom to practice your religion?  Is owning a firearm equal to those?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s what we’re waiting for the Supreme Court to determine.
Click to expand...


And just how many times do they have to rule before you accept their ruling.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can disagree, but the fact of the matter is, progressivism ideal is a collectivist concept and America has always been about the protection of the individual through the social contract.  BTW.  IT is NOT propaganda.  History proves that out.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it hasn't.  It has always been about the advancement of the Body Politic--the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it has been about protecting the rights of the individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Civil rights of the _People_.
> 
> actual words matter, in our federal and American express, Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes they do.   If we protect the rights of 10 citizens, are we protecting the right of a person or of people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People, if we have to quibble rights in our federal Constitution.
Click to expand...


I am not quibbling.  I am correcting you.  And most constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court agree with me.  "People" is obviously plural.  But there is nothing to suggest it is collective.  You'll have to do better than insisting you are right and pleading to ignorance to have that play here.


----------



## westwall

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> WTF?
> 
> In the part of the constitution (the bill of rights) that expresses the rights of the INDIVIDUAL, they decided to lump in that A STATE HAS THE RIGHT TO FORM A MILITIA?
> 
> That makes absolutely ZERO sense.
> 
> 
> 
> You make zero sense.  The actual words in our Second Amendment clearly declare what is Necessary to the security of a free State; it is mostly definitely not, the whole and entire concept of natural and individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is you who are confused.  So that the State CAN remain free, it is essential that the natural Right of defense be acknowledged.  Firearms ownership by the PEOPLE is how that is maintained.  Not the government, the PEOPLE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you follow current events?  Imagine small arms held by the Syrian People, against the 20th Century war planes dropping ordinance and chemical weapons.  Whose winning those engagements?
> 
> Then consider the effect if citizens could own the arms capable of engaging a 21st century military force in the US?   In my opinion, having served on a Destroyer in the late 60's, how that vessel would have done against the 21st Century Navy - not well and not for long.
> 
> Your reasoning is absurd.  Today the cost and size of our military, and the training, cannot be defeated or even slowed by a civilian force, and even if the arms of war were legal in the US.  Have you thought about how these arms might be used in small engagements against the civilian population (think criminal gangs).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I think an armed civilian population could fare reasonably well against our gov't.   First of all, you are correct that our military could decimate a population armed with small arms.  But would they be able to do so without decimating the entire civilian population?   Remember the uproar when our military shot up unarmed civilians in Iraq?   Now imagine that being US citizens.  The armed population would blend in with the rest of the population.   It would not be a matter of defeating the US military, but doing enough damage to force them to engage and then take enough damage to force public opinion into the equation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Disagree.
> 
> An armed civilian population would fare poorly against the US military.
> 
> And as we demonstrated during the Civil War, Americans have no problem slaughtering their fellow Americans in large numbers.
> 
> Otherwise, there is nothing in the text, history, or case law of the Second Amendment that authorizes citizens who subjectively perceive the government to have become ‘tyrannical’ to take up arms against a duly and lawfully elected government representing the will of the majority of the American people – the Second Amendment doesn’t ‘trump’ the First Amendment, the people have the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances through the political or judicial process, not by force of arms.
Click to expand...






Facts in evidence say otherwise.


----------



## westwall

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you have never shown how you determine that it is collective.   Plural is a given, since the individual right is for an entire population.  But collective?  How do you make that determination?   (granted, you have never answered that question, so I don't expect you will this time)
> 
> 
> 
> The _militia_ and the body politic of the _People_, along with the _security needs of a free State_ are all, collective and plural; coincidence or well regulated conspiracy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The militia is made up of citizen soldiers.  They maintain their own weapons, but can be called upon to defend our nation if we are attacked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nothing but diversion?  all of those terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Collective?   You have yet to defend your reasoning behind insisting it is a collective right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is self evident.  both terms militia and the people are collective and plural as is the context regarding the security of a free State.
> 
> Only the clueless and Causeless right wing, never gets it.
Click to expand...



What does
"the RIGHT of the INDIVIDUAL"

 mean then?


----------



## Darkwind

Daryl Hunt said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, states are important.  I never said otherwise.  But the basic rights are listed in the US Constitution, and cannot be overruled by any state.  The US Constitution guarantees certain rights to all citizens.  The states may expand on those, but they cannot take them away.
> 
> 
> 
> The context and terms of our Second Amendment are plural and collective not individual or singular; it is, our supreme law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you have never shown how you determine that it is collective.   Plural is a given, since the individual right is for an entire population.  But collective?  How do you make that determination?   (granted, you have never answered that question, so I don't expect you will this time)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The _militia_ and the body politic of the _People_, along with the _security needs of a free State_ are all, collective and plural; coincidence or well regulated conspiracy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The militia is made up of citizen soldiers.  They maintain their own weapons, but can be called upon to defend our nation if we are attacked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree when it was before the weapons costs so danged much.  You could afford anything the Military could except for artillery.  And if you were rich enough, you could afford even an artillery piece or two as well.  After 1850, the cost of war went up exponentially.  All of a sudden, the Gatlin was introduced, followed closely by the Hotchkin Canon, the Rocket Launchers, Aerial Bombs, Mortars, Howitzers and more.  The cost of war outstripped even the richest people.  Only Governments could afford those expenditures.  It was back to the days where the King was the only one that could afford to outfit his Knights with the proper equipment to wage war.  Without even knowing it, the 2nd amendment included something about an Organized Militia where the State would equip it's own Army.  The State could afford many of the weapons or war far beyond the individual.  What they didn't foresee was the power and the cost of the weapons to even outstrip anything even the State could afford.  Now,only the Federals can afford these weapons by pooling all the States Funds together.  If a State were to put together an Organized Militia from the weapons you had and the weapons it actually owned it would not be able to stand the first battle with the Federals.  The National  Guard's Weapons aren't owned by the State, they are owned by the Feds.
> 
> Now, where does that leave the first half of the 2nd amendment?
Click to expand...

Two issues about this come to mind.

1.  In this country, there are over 200 million guns.  That is a formidable army, even for our military.  However, that leads to the second point...

2.  The military would not obey an order from the civilian government to go to war with the people of the United States.  It would be an 'unlawful' order.  At best, if it ever came to brass tacks and we had to defend ourselves from our own government, at best, we are looking at the combined law enforcement agencies controlled by the Feds.  They are, in their own right, quite a force, but not one that could take the entirety of the US population; or those who are armed and resisting.


----------



## Darkwind

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you have never shown how you determine that it is collective.   Plural is a given, since the individual right is for an entire population.  But collective?  How do you make that determination?   (granted, you have never answered that question, so I don't expect you will this time)
> 
> 
> 
> The _militia_ and the body politic of the _People_, along with the _security needs of a free State_ are all, collective and plural; coincidence or well regulated conspiracy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The militia is made up of citizen soldiers.  They maintain their own weapons, but can be called upon to defend our nation if we are attacked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nothing but diversion?  all of those terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Collective?   You have yet to defend your reasoning behind insisting it is a collective right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is self evident.  both terms militia and the people are collective and plural as is the context regarding the security of a free State.
> 
> Only the clueless and Causeless right wing, never gets it.
Click to expand...

In fact, given that the entire document is set and predicated upon ensuring and safeguarding the rights and liberties of the individual, your statement fails any logic test.

The people is an artful way of saying that each individual enjoys the exact same protections under the law and that each individual's liberty is of concern to everyone.


----------



## Darkwind

A Primer on the Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms


----------



## there4eyeM

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> WTF?
> 
> In the part of the constitution (the bill of rights) that expresses the rights of the INDIVIDUAL, they decided to lump in that A STATE HAS THE RIGHT TO FORM A MILITIA?
> 
> That makes absolutely ZERO sense.
> 
> 
> 
> You make zero sense.  The actual words in our Second Amendment clearly declare what is Necessary to the security of a free State; it is mostly definitely not, the whole and entire concept of natural and individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is you who are confused.  So that the State CAN remain free, it is essential that the natural Right of defense be acknowledged.  Firearms ownership by the PEOPLE is how that is maintained.  Not the government, the PEOPLE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you follow current events?  Imagine small arms held by the Syrian People, against the 20th Century war planes dropping ordinance and chemical weapons.  Whose winning those engagements?
> 
> Then consider the effect if citizens could own the arms capable of engaging a 21st century military force in the US?   In my opinion, having served on a Destroyer in the late 60's, how that vessel would have done against the 21st Century Navy - not well and not for long.
> 
> Your reasoning is absurd.  Today the cost and size of our military, and the training, cannot be defeated or even slowed by a civilian force, and even if the arms of war were legal in the US.  Have you thought about how these arms might be used in small engagements against the civilian population (think criminal gangs).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I think an armed civilian population could fare reasonably well against our gov't.   First of all, you are correct that our military could decimate a population armed with small arms.  But would they be able to do so without decimating the entire civilian population?   Remember the uproar when our military shot up unarmed civilians in Iraq?   Now imagine that being US citizens.  The armed population would blend in with the rest of the population.   It would not be a matter of defeating the US military, but doing enough damage to force them to engage and then take enough damage to force public opinion into the equation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Disagree.
> 
> An armed civilian population would fare poorly against the US military.
> 
> And as we demonstrated during the Civil War, Americans have no problem slaughtering their fellow Americans in large numbers.
> 
> Otherwise, there is nothing in the text, history, or case law of the Second Amendment that authorizes citizens who subjectively perceive the government to have become ‘tyrannical’ to take up arms against a duly and lawfully elected government representing the will of the majority of the American people – the Second Amendment doesn’t ‘trump’ the First Amendment, the people have the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances through the political or judicial process, not by force of arms.
Click to expand...

Unarmed Americans were unhesitatingly shot at Kent State. What makes anyone think the military would not fire on armed rebels?


----------



## danielpalos

Markle said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> ur Founding Fathers did an most Excellent job at the convention with our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land. *Our Second Amendment says the same thing, with or without any punctuation, "on the right wing".*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who could make this up?
Click to expand...

I already tried it.  The right wing is simply full of fallacy if they believe, punctuation has any influence in the meaning of the terms in our Second Amendment.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The militia will muster, criminals won't; any questions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None.  That answers why I demand my right to own a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Has nothing to do with our Second Amendment; natural and individual and singular rights are recognized in our State Constitutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to bear arms is recognized in our US Constitution, which is superior to any state constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Only the unorganized militia whines about gun control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If someone believes a gov't action to be unconstitutional, they SHOULD speak up.  At least they are aware of whether the US Constitution or a state constitution is more powerful.
Click to expand...

lol.  the right wing is simply too full of fallacy to take seriously in any serious venues.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The _militia_ and the body politic of the _People_, along with the _security needs of a free State_ are all, collective and plural; coincidence or well regulated conspiracy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The militia is made up of citizen soldiers.  They maintain their own weapons, but can be called upon to defend our nation if we are attacked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nothing but diversion?  all of those terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Collective?   You have yet to defend your reasoning behind insisting it is a collective right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is self evident.  both terms militia and the people are collective and plural as is the context regarding the security of a free State.
> 
> Only the clueless and Causeless right wing, never gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it is not self evident.  There is nothing in the 2nd amendment that supports the idea that it is a collective right.
Click to expand...

lol.  Only if you appeal to ignorance of the terms.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Daryl Hunt said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not that I expect you would read it.
> 
> The Second Amendment as an Expression of First Principles
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment is unique among the amendments in the Bill of Rights, in that it contains a preface explaining the reason for the right protected: Militias are necessary for the security of a free state. We cannot read the words “free State” here as a reference to the several states that make up the Union. The frequent use of the phrase “free State” in the founding era makes it abundantly clear that it means a non-tyrannical or non-despotic state. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in the case of _District of Columbia v. Heller_ (2008), rightly remarked that the term and its “close variations” were “terms of art in 18th-century political discourse, meaning a free country or free polity.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree to disagree, if we have to quibble.  A free State of our Union, is one free from federal interference in its internal affairs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no quibbling.  YOu are being corrected for your inaccurate claims.  You keep talking about others being clueless, and yet you claim the states are the source of our guaranteed rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Yes, they are.  That is why, States are important.  They recognize and secure natural and individal rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, states are important.  I never said otherwise.  But the basic rights are listed in the US Constitution, and cannot be overruled by any state.  The US Constitution guarantees certain rights to all citizens.  The states may expand on those, but they cannot take them away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is why most Amendments are so vague.  It's designed for the states to design it to fit themselves.  The only exception is when it's an absolute human right.  And you can't equate owning a firearm with breathing air or being locked up without due course.  It's just not the same.
Click to expand...


I disagree.

The right to defend your own life is just as important as breathing.
We all have the absolute right to defend ourselves by the most effective means possible and the most effective tool for the purpose of self defense , at least right now, is a firearm.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it hasn't.  It has always been about the advancement of the Body Politic--the People.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it has been about protecting the rights of the individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Civil rights of the _People_.
> 
> actual words matter, in our federal and American express, Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes they do.   If we protect the rights of 10 citizens, are we protecting the right of a person or of people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People, if we have to quibble rights in our federal Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not quibbling.  I am correcting you.  And most constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court agree with me.  "People" is obviously plural.  But there is nothing to suggest it is collective.  You'll have to do better than insisting you are right and pleading to ignorance to have that play here.
Click to expand...

lol.  Nobody takes the right wing seriously about Constitutional law.  Story telling is what they are best at.

Plural and collective, is what the franchise is about.


----------



## danielpalos

westwall said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The _militia_ and the body politic of the _People_, along with the _security needs of a free State_ are all, collective and plural; coincidence or well regulated conspiracy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The militia is made up of citizen soldiers.  They maintain their own weapons, but can be called upon to defend our nation if we are attacked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nothing but diversion?  all of those terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Collective?   You have yet to defend your reasoning behind insisting it is a collective right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is self evident.  both terms militia and the people are collective and plural as is the context regarding the security of a free State.
> 
> Only the clueless and Causeless right wing, never gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What does
> "the RIGHT of the INDIVIDUAL"
> 
> mean then?
Click to expand...

State Constitutions recognize and secure natural and individual and singular rights.


----------



## danielpalos

Darkwind said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The _militia_ and the body politic of the _People_, along with the _security needs of a free State_ are all, collective and plural; coincidence or well regulated conspiracy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The militia is made up of citizen soldiers.  They maintain their own weapons, but can be called upon to defend our nation if we are attacked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nothing but diversion?  all of those terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Collective?   You have yet to defend your reasoning behind insisting it is a collective right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is self evident.  both terms militia and the people are collective and plural as is the context regarding the security of a free State.
> 
> Only the clueless and Causeless right wing, never gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In fact, given that the entire document is set and predicated upon ensuring and safeguarding the rights and liberties of the individual, your statement fails any logic test.
> 
> The people is an artful way of saying that each individual enjoys the exact same protections under the law and that each individual's liberty is of concern to everyone.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't.  Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process in our federal Constitution.  The right wing is simply, clueless and Causeless.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> None.  That answers why I demand my right to own a gun.
> 
> 
> 
> Has nothing to do with our Second Amendment; natural and individual and singular rights are recognized in our State Constitutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to bear arms is recognized in our US Constitution, which is superior to any state constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Only the unorganized militia whines about gun control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If someone believes a gov't action to be unconstitutional, they SHOULD speak up.  At least they are aware of whether the US Constitution or a state constitution is more powerful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  the right wing is simply too full of fallacy to take seriously in any serious venues.
Click to expand...


More of this?   Try posting something factual instead of claiming no one pays attention to whomever.  It is nonsense.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The militia is made up of citizen soldiers.  They maintain their own weapons, but can be called upon to defend our nation if we are attacked.
> 
> 
> 
> nothing but diversion?  all of those terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Collective?   You have yet to defend your reasoning behind insisting it is a collective right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is self evident.  both terms militia and the people are collective and plural as is the context regarding the security of a free State.
> 
> Only the clueless and Causeless right wing, never gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it is not self evident.  There is nothing in the 2nd amendment that supports the idea that it is a collective right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Only if you appeal to ignorance of the terms.
Click to expand...


Your claims might be taken seriously if you offered anything more than the claim that it is a collective right.  You offer no proof or evidence.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it has been about protecting the rights of the individual.
> 
> 
> 
> Civil rights of the _People_.
> 
> actual words matter, in our federal and American express, Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes they do.   If we protect the rights of 10 citizens, are we protecting the right of a person or of people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People, if we have to quibble rights in our federal Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not quibbling.  I am correcting you.  And most constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court agree with me.  "People" is obviously plural.  But there is nothing to suggest it is collective.  You'll have to do better than insisting you are right and pleading to ignorance to have that play here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Nobody takes the right wing seriously about Constitutional law.  Story telling is what they are best at.
> 
> Plural and collective, is what the franchise is about.
Click to expand...


Plural is a given, since it guarantees a right to the population.

Collective is not.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The militia is made up of citizen soldiers.  They maintain their own weapons, but can be called upon to defend our nation if we are attacked.
> 
> 
> 
> nothing but diversion?  all of those terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Collective?   You have yet to defend your reasoning behind insisting it is a collective right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is self evident.  both terms militia and the people are collective and plural as is the context regarding the security of a free State.
> 
> Only the clueless and Causeless right wing, never gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What does
> "the RIGHT of the INDIVIDUAL"
> 
> mean then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> State Constitutions recognize and secure natural and individual and singular rights.
Click to expand...


They do so under the restrictions of the US Constitution, which is the original source of guaranteed rights in this country.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The militia is made up of citizen soldiers.  They maintain their own weapons, but can be called upon to defend our nation if we are attacked.
> 
> 
> 
> nothing but diversion?  all of those terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Collective?   You have yet to defend your reasoning behind insisting it is a collective right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is self evident.  both terms militia and the people are collective and plural as is the context regarding the security of a free State.
> 
> Only the clueless and Causeless right wing, never gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In fact, given that the entire document is set and predicated upon ensuring and safeguarding the rights and liberties of the individual, your statement fails any logic test.
> 
> The people is an artful way of saying that each individual enjoys the exact same protections under the law and that each individual's liberty is of concern to everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it isn't.  Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process in our federal Constitution.  The right wing is simply, clueless and Causeless.
Click to expand...


State constitutions are restricted by the US Constitution.   The rights guaranteed by the US Constitution are individual and civil rights.  By your claim, a state constitution could remove the right to free speech.  But, in reality, no state constitution can do that.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> nothing but diversion?  all of those terms are collective and plural.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Collective?   You have yet to defend your reasoning behind insisting it is a collective right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is self evident.  both terms militia and the people are collective and plural as is the context regarding the security of a free State.
> 
> Only the clueless and Causeless right wing, never gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it is not self evident.  There is nothing in the 2nd amendment that supports the idea that it is a collective right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Only if you appeal to ignorance of the terms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your claims might be taken seriously if you offered anything more than the claim that it is a collective right.  You offer no proof or evidence.
Click to expand...

You don't understand any serious arguments, right winger; telling stories is all you seem to know.

Every dictionary supports my story and not your story.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Civil rights of the _People_.
> 
> actual words matter, in our federal and American express, Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they do.   If we protect the rights of 10 citizens, are we protecting the right of a person or of people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People, if we have to quibble rights in our federal Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not quibbling.  I am correcting you.  And most constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court agree with me.  "People" is obviously plural.  But there is nothing to suggest it is collective.  You'll have to do better than insisting you are right and pleading to ignorance to have that play here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Nobody takes the right wing seriously about Constitutional law.  Story telling is what they are best at.
> 
> Plural and collective, is what the franchise is about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Plural is a given, since it guarantees a right to the population.
> 
> Collective is not.
Click to expand...

The collective of the Body Politic, votes.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> nothing but diversion?  all of those terms are collective and plural.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Collective?   You have yet to defend your reasoning behind insisting it is a collective right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is self evident.  both terms militia and the people are collective and plural as is the context regarding the security of a free State.
> 
> Only the clueless and Causeless right wing, never gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What does
> "the RIGHT of the INDIVIDUAL"
> 
> mean then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> State Constitutions recognize and secure natural and individual and singular rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They do so under the restrictions of the US Constitution, which is the original source of guaranteed rights in this country.
Click to expand...

lol.  telling stories is all you know how to do, right wingers.  

We have a Tenth Amendment.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> nothing but diversion?  all of those terms are collective and plural.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Collective?   You have yet to defend your reasoning behind insisting it is a collective right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is self evident.  both terms militia and the people are collective and plural as is the context regarding the security of a free State.
> 
> Only the clueless and Causeless right wing, never gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In fact, given that the entire document is set and predicated upon ensuring and safeguarding the rights and liberties of the individual, your statement fails any logic test.
> 
> The people is an artful way of saying that each individual enjoys the exact same protections under the law and that each individual's liberty is of concern to everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it isn't.  Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process in our federal Constitution.  The right wing is simply, clueless and Causeless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> State constitutions are restricted by the US Constitution.   The rights guaranteed by the US Constitution are individual and civil rights.  By your claim, a state constitution could remove the right to free speech.  But, in reality, no state constitution can do that.
Click to expand...

just story telling, right wingers?  we dare not call it spam, while in the minority.

We have a Tenth Amendment.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Darkwind said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The context and terms of our Second Amendment are plural and collective not individual or singular; it is, our supreme law of the land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you have never shown how you determine that it is collective.   Plural is a given, since the individual right is for an entire population.  But collective?  How do you make that determination?   (granted, you have never answered that question, so I don't expect you will this time)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The _militia_ and the body politic of the _People_, along with the _security needs of a free State_ are all, collective and plural; coincidence or well regulated conspiracy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The militia is made up of citizen soldiers.  They maintain their own weapons, but can be called upon to defend our nation if we are attacked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree when it was before the weapons costs so danged much.  You could afford anything the Military could except for artillery.  And if you were rich enough, you could afford even an artillery piece or two as well.  After 1850, the cost of war went up exponentially.  All of a sudden, the Gatlin was introduced, followed closely by the Hotchkin Canon, the Rocket Launchers, Aerial Bombs, Mortars, Howitzers and more.  The cost of war outstripped even the richest people.  Only Governments could afford those expenditures.  It was back to the days where the King was the only one that could afford to outfit his Knights with the proper equipment to wage war.  Without even knowing it, the 2nd amendment included something about an Organized Militia where the State would equip it's own Army.  The State could afford many of the weapons or war far beyond the individual.  What they didn't foresee was the power and the cost of the weapons to even outstrip anything even the State could afford.  Now,only the Federals can afford these weapons by pooling all the States Funds together.  If a State were to put together an Organized Militia from the weapons you had and the weapons it actually owned it would not be able to stand the first battle with the Federals.  The National  Guard's Weapons aren't owned by the State, they are owned by the Feds.
> 
> Now, where does that leave the first half of the 2nd amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Two issues about this come to mind.
> 
> 1.  In this country, there are over 200 million guns.  That is a formidable army, even for our military.  However, that leads to the second point...
> 
> 2.  The military would not obey an order from the civilian government to go to war with the people of the United States.  It would be an 'unlawful' order.  At best, if it ever came to brass tacks and we had to defend ourselves from our own government, at best, we are looking at the combined law enforcement agencies controlled by the Feds.  They are, in their own right, quite a force, but not one that could take the entirety of the US population; or those who are armed and resisting.
Click to expand...


1. There are 200 million guns, yes.  But not even a fraction of that many households that actually have the guns.  Many households with guns have multiple guns. 

2.  And who are you going to get to lead your Army?  Are you aware it's against the law to openly preach about an armed overthrow of the United States of America?  It's one thing to do it as an individual but when you do it large scale, that's considered treason and subject to arrest, prosecution and imprisonment.  If you continue to do so while incarcerated, you may find yourself living in solitary confinement in Levenworth or one of the Super Max Prisons.

3.  Now that you have decided to raise your army, just how are you going to mobilize it.  Logistics is a nightmare.  Are you going to practice it?  Once again, treason gets in the way here.  

4.  You are assuming that all or most gun owners will take up arms with you.  Newsflash:  Don't look for anything like that.  Most of us Gun Owners think the people running around the woods playing war are a bunch of nutcases and are probably right.  If push comes to shove, most are likely to become part of the Organized Militia and get the really good stuff.

5.  You forget, the US Military CAN and WILL defend against the enemy(s) of the United States and the Constitution if authorized by the President and Congress in country.  If you raise an million man army, and decide to take over parts of the country, you are now an enemy of the State and are no longer considered Citizens by your own admission.  The US can raise a few million very quickly by using Active, Reserve, National Guard, State Guard and Organized Militia.  The Organized Militia would take a bit longer but the first three could be done in a matter of days.  Logistics would take a couple of weeks to get them into place.  Meanwhile, you are still trying to get your people mobilized.  

It's an impossible pipe nightmare on your part.  But if you want to try, be my guest.  The Graveyards and Prisons have room to spare for your "Army".


----------



## Pop23

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Collective?   You have yet to defend your reasoning behind insisting it is a collective right.
> 
> 
> 
> it is self evident.  both terms militia and the people are collective and plural as is the context regarding the security of a free State.
> 
> Only the clueless and Causeless right wing, never gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it is not self evident.  There is nothing in the 2nd amendment that supports the idea that it is a collective right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Only if you appeal to ignorance of the terms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your claims might be taken seriously if you offered anything more than the claim that it is a collective right.  You offer no proof or evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't understand any serious arguments, right winger; telling stories is all you seem to know.
> 
> Every dictionary supports my story and not your story.
Click to expand...


Because you say so?

Yeah, we get it, just like we get the part of the Second that obviously reads, "the right of the people, as part of an organized militia, shall not be infringed".


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Collective?   You have yet to defend your reasoning behind insisting it is a collective right.
> 
> 
> 
> it is self evident.  both terms militia and the people are collective and plural as is the context regarding the security of a free State.
> 
> Only the clueless and Causeless right wing, never gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it is not self evident.  There is nothing in the 2nd amendment that supports the idea that it is a collective right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Only if you appeal to ignorance of the terms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your claims might be taken seriously if you offered anything more than the claim that it is a collective right.  You offer no proof or evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't understand any serious arguments, right winger; telling stories is all you seem to know.
> 
> Every dictionary supports my story and not your story.
Click to expand...


The dictionary definition of the word "people" shows it to be plural.   No dictionary shows the definition to always be collective.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they do.   If we protect the rights of 10 citizens, are we protecting the right of a person or of people?
> 
> 
> 
> The People, if we have to quibble rights in our federal Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not quibbling.  I am correcting you.  And most constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court agree with me.  "People" is obviously plural.  But there is nothing to suggest it is collective.  You'll have to do better than insisting you are right and pleading to ignorance to have that play here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Nobody takes the right wing seriously about Constitutional law.  Story telling is what they are best at.
> 
> Plural and collective, is what the franchise is about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Plural is a given, since it guarantees a right to the population.
> 
> Collective is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The collective of the Body Politic, votes.
Click to expand...


And the people have individual rights.   The word people is not always collective.  So unless you have some evidence that the word, as used in the 2nd amendment, is collective, your argument is ridiculous.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Collective?   You have yet to defend your reasoning behind insisting it is a collective right.
> 
> 
> 
> it is self evident.  both terms militia and the people are collective and plural as is the context regarding the security of a free State.
> 
> Only the clueless and Causeless right wing, never gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What does
> "the RIGHT of the INDIVIDUAL"
> 
> mean then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> State Constitutions recognize and secure natural and individual and singular rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They do so under the restrictions of the US Constitution, which is the original source of guaranteed rights in this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  telling stories is all you know how to do, right wingers.
> 
> We have a Tenth Amendment.
Click to expand...


Indeed we do.    "*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."

Guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms is listed in the US Constitution.  A state cannot remove that guaranteed right.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Skull Pilot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree to disagree, if we have to quibble.  A free State of our Union, is one free from federal interference in its internal affairs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no quibbling.  YOu are being corrected for your inaccurate claims.  You keep talking about others being clueless, and yet you claim the states are the source of our guaranteed rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Yes, they are.  That is why, States are important.  They recognize and secure natural and individal rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, states are important.  I never said otherwise.  But the basic rights are listed in the US Constitution, and cannot be overruled by any state.  The US Constitution guarantees certain rights to all citizens.  The states may expand on those, but they cannot take them away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is why most Amendments are so vague.  It's designed for the states to design it to fit themselves.  The only exception is when it's an absolute human right.  And you can't equate owning a firearm with breathing air or being locked up without due course.  It's just not the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree.
> 
> The right to defend your own life is just as important as breathing.
> We all have the absolute right to defend ourselves by the most effective means possible and the most effective tool for the purpose of self defense , at least right now, is a firearm.
Click to expand...


There are many degrees of defense.  You use the ones most appropriate to the situation.  I didn't used to need a firearm to stop an intruder that was not armed with a firearm.  I am too old to do that anymore.  But there are other ways to do without shooting them.  Most home invaders aren't armed.  They are not invading.  They are there to steal and picked what they thought was an unoccupied house.  A Baseball Bat works wonders.  So does a gun but (pardon the pun) that's a bit of an overkill unless you are my age.  In my younger days, that intruder wouldn't have stood a tinkers chance and a gun would not have been necessary or even a baseball bat.  But age creeps up on all of us if we are lucky enough to reach it.  Usually, just yelling, letting them know the house is occupied is enough to send them scurrying.  Of course, yelling, I have a Gun usually does the trick as well.  Most of the time, a Dog does a better job.  Reminds me of a Joke.

A Burglar broke into a house that he knew the occupants were on vacation.  He sees a Parrot.  The Parrot says, "God is Watching".  The Burglar ignores the bird and goes over to the stereo and unplugs it.  Burglar goes over to the Big Screen TV.  The Parrot says again, "God is Watching You".  The Burglar says, "Who in their right mind would name a Parrot God".  The Parrot said, "No one.  But they would name the Rotwieller that is watching you God though".  Grrrr.


----------



## bodecea

westwall said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The _militia_ and the body politic of the _People_, along with the _security needs of a free State_ are all, collective and plural; coincidence or well regulated conspiracy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The militia is made up of citizen soldiers.  They maintain their own weapons, but can be called upon to defend our nation if we are attacked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nothing but diversion?  all of those terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Collective?   You have yet to defend your reasoning behind insisting it is a collective right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is self evident.  both terms militia and the people are collective and plural as is the context regarding the security of a free State.
> 
> Only the clueless and Causeless right wing, never gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What does
> "the RIGHT of the INDIVIDUAL"
> 
> mean then?
Click to expand...

The entire 2nd Amendment, and I quote:  "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".

No "the RIGHT of the INDIVIDUAL" there at all.


----------



## WinterBorn

Daryl Hunt said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no quibbling.  YOu are being corrected for your inaccurate claims.  You keep talking about others being clueless, and yet you claim the states are the source of our guaranteed rights.
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  Yes, they are.  That is why, States are important.  They recognize and secure natural and individal rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, states are important.  I never said otherwise.  But the basic rights are listed in the US Constitution, and cannot be overruled by any state.  The US Constitution guarantees certain rights to all citizens.  The states may expand on those, but they cannot take them away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is why most Amendments are so vague.  It's designed for the states to design it to fit themselves.  The only exception is when it's an absolute human right.  And you can't equate owning a firearm with breathing air or being locked up without due course.  It's just not the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree.
> 
> The right to defend your own life is just as important as breathing.
> We all have the absolute right to defend ourselves by the most effective means possible and the most effective tool for the purpose of self defense , at least right now, is a firearm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are many degrees of defense.  You use the ones most appropriate to the situation.  I didn't used to need a firearm to stop an intruder that was not armed with a firearm.  I am too old to do that anymore.  But there are other ways to do without shooting them.  Most home invaders aren't armed.  They are not invading.  They are there to steal and picked what they thought was an unoccupied house.  A Baseball Bat works wonders.  So does a gun but (pardon the pun) that's a bit of an overkill unless you are my age.  In my younger days, that intruder wouldn't have stood a tinkers chance and a gun would not have been necessary or even a baseball bat.  But age creeps up on all of us if we are lucky enough to reach it.  Usually, just yelling, letting them know the house is occupied is enough to send them scurrying.  Of course, yelling, I have a Gun usually does the trick as well.  Most of the time, a Dog does a better job.  Reminds me of a Joke.
> 
> A Burglar broke into a house that he knew the occupants were on vacation.  He sees a Parrot.  The Parrot says, "God is Watching".  The Burglar ignores the bird and goes over to the stereo and unplugs it.  Burglar goes over to the Big Screen TV.  The Parrot says again, "God is Watching You".  The Burglar says, "Who in their right mind would name a Parrot God".  The Parrot said, "No one.  But they would name the Rotwieller that is watching you God though".  Grrrr.
Click to expand...


I agree with part of what you said.  In my younger days, most unarmed burglars wouldn't stand a chance.  But I am older now.  Also, how do you tell whether or not the intruder is armed?  I refuse to put my life, and the lives of my loved ones, in the hands of a criminals decision to carry or not carry.  Yes, most home intruders are only interested in stealing something.  But that is not always the case.  Again, how do you tell?

If someone breaks into my house, they will be shot.  If it is by me, they will be shot until they are no longer a threat.  If it is by my sweetheart, they will be shot until she runs out of bullets.  If they are VERY lucky, they will convincingly surrender after being shot with the first round, which is a shotshell.  Otherwise defensive rounds will follow.


----------



## peach174

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you have never shown how you determine that it is collective.   Plural is a given, since the individual right is for an entire population.  But collective?  How do you make that determination?   (granted, you have never answered that question, so I don't expect you will this time)
> 
> 
> 
> The _militia_ and the body politic of the _People_, along with the _security needs of a free State_ are all, collective and plural; coincidence or well regulated conspiracy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The militia is made up of citizen soldiers.  They maintain their own weapons, but can be called upon to defend our nation if we are attacked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nothing but diversion?  all of those terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Collective?   You have yet to defend your reasoning behind insisting it is a collective right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is self evident.  both terms militia and the people are collective and plural as is the context regarding the security of a free State.
> 
> Only the clueless and Causeless right wing, never gets it.
Click to expand...


Collective is Socialism.
Individual right is freedom from Government.
That includes The Federal Government which has no right to pass any laws on any of our Amendments. 
Written history proves this.


----------



## bodecea

there4eyeM said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You make zero sense.  The actual words in our Second Amendment clearly declare what is Necessary to the security of a free State; it is mostly definitely not, the whole and entire concept of natural and individual rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is you who are confused.  So that the State CAN remain free, it is essential that the natural Right of defense be acknowledged.  Firearms ownership by the PEOPLE is how that is maintained.  Not the government, the PEOPLE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you follow current events?  Imagine small arms held by the Syrian People, against the 20th Century war planes dropping ordinance and chemical weapons.  Whose winning those engagements?
> 
> Then consider the effect if citizens could own the arms capable of engaging a 21st century military force in the US?   In my opinion, having served on a Destroyer in the late 60's, how that vessel would have done against the 21st Century Navy - not well and not for long.
> 
> Your reasoning is absurd.  Today the cost and size of our military, and the training, cannot be defeated or even slowed by a civilian force, and even if the arms of war were legal in the US.  Have you thought about how these arms might be used in small engagements against the civilian population (think criminal gangs).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I think an armed civilian population could fare reasonably well against our gov't.   First of all, you are correct that our military could decimate a population armed with small arms.  But would they be able to do so without decimating the entire civilian population?   Remember the uproar when our military shot up unarmed civilians in Iraq?   Now imagine that being US citizens.  The armed population would blend in with the rest of the population.   It would not be a matter of defeating the US military, but doing enough damage to force them to engage and then take enough damage to force public opinion into the equation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Disagree.
> 
> An armed civilian population would fare poorly against the US military.
> 
> And as we demonstrated during the Civil War, Americans have no problem slaughtering their fellow Americans in large numbers.
> 
> Otherwise, there is nothing in the text, history, or case law of the Second Amendment that authorizes citizens who subjectively perceive the government to have become ‘tyrannical’ to take up arms against a duly and lawfully elected government representing the will of the majority of the American people – the Second Amendment doesn’t ‘trump’ the First Amendment, the people have the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances through the political or judicial process, not by force of arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unarmed Americans were unhesitatingly shot at Kent State. What makes anyone think the military would not fire on armed rebels?
Click to expand...

Imagine this van full of Alt-Righties in Texas running from their meth lab.  U.S. A-10 Strafing a Taliban Vehicle in Kandahar


----------



## bodecea

Darkwind said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The context and terms of our Second Amendment are plural and collective not individual or singular; it is, our supreme law of the land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you have never shown how you determine that it is collective.   Plural is a given, since the individual right is for an entire population.  But collective?  How do you make that determination?   (granted, you have never answered that question, so I don't expect you will this time)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The _militia_ and the body politic of the _People_, along with the _security needs of a free State_ are all, collective and plural; coincidence or well regulated conspiracy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The militia is made up of citizen soldiers.  They maintain their own weapons, but can be called upon to defend our nation if we are attacked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree when it was before the weapons costs so danged much.  You could afford anything the Military could except for artillery.  And if you were rich enough, you could afford even an artillery piece or two as well.  After 1850, the cost of war went up exponentially.  All of a sudden, the Gatlin was introduced, followed closely by the Hotchkin Canon, the Rocket Launchers, Aerial Bombs, Mortars, Howitzers and more.  The cost of war outstripped even the richest people.  Only Governments could afford those expenditures.  It was back to the days where the King was the only one that could afford to outfit his Knights with the proper equipment to wage war.  Without even knowing it, the 2nd amendment included something about an Organized Militia where the State would equip it's own Army.  The State could afford many of the weapons or war far beyond the individual.  What they didn't foresee was the power and the cost of the weapons to even outstrip anything even the State could afford.  Now,only the Federals can afford these weapons by pooling all the States Funds together.  If a State were to put together an Organized Militia from the weapons you had and the weapons it actually owned it would not be able to stand the first battle with the Federals.  The National  Guard's Weapons aren't owned by the State, they are owned by the Feds.
> 
> Now, where does that leave the first half of the 2nd amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Two issues about this come to mind.
> 
> 1.  In this country, there are over 200 million guns.  That is a formidable army, even for our military.  However, that leads to the second point...
> 
> 2.  The military would not obey an order from the civilian government to go to war with the people of the United States.  It would be an 'unlawful' order.  At best, if it ever came to brass tacks and we had to defend ourselves from our own government, at best, we are looking at the combined law enforcement agencies controlled by the Feds.  They are, in their own right, quite a force, but not one that could take the entirety of the US population; or those who are armed and resisting.
Click to expand...

Where do you get the confidence to believe #2 to be true?


----------



## Pop23

Daryl Hunt said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you have never shown how you determine that it is collective.   Plural is a given, since the individual right is for an entire population.  But collective?  How do you make that determination?   (granted, you have never answered that question, so I don't expect you will this time)
> 
> 
> 
> The _militia_ and the body politic of the _People_, along with the _security needs of a free State_ are all, collective and plural; coincidence or well regulated conspiracy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The militia is made up of citizen soldiers.  They maintain their own weapons, but can be called upon to defend our nation if we are attacked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree when it was before the weapons costs so danged much.  You could afford anything the Military could except for artillery.  And if you were rich enough, you could afford even an artillery piece or two as well.  After 1850, the cost of war went up exponentially.  All of a sudden, the Gatlin was introduced, followed closely by the Hotchkin Canon, the Rocket Launchers, Aerial Bombs, Mortars, Howitzers and more.  The cost of war outstripped even the richest people.  Only Governments could afford those expenditures.  It was back to the days where the King was the only one that could afford to outfit his Knights with the proper equipment to wage war.  Without even knowing it, the 2nd amendment included something about an Organized Militia where the State would equip it's own Army.  The State could afford many of the weapons or war far beyond the individual.  What they didn't foresee was the power and the cost of the weapons to even outstrip anything even the State could afford.  Now,only the Federals can afford these weapons by pooling all the States Funds together.  If a State were to put together an Organized Militia from the weapons you had and the weapons it actually owned it would not be able to stand the first battle with the Federals.  The National  Guard's Weapons aren't owned by the State, they are owned by the Feds.
> 
> Now, where does that leave the first half of the 2nd amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Two issues about this come to mind.
> 
> 1.  In this country, there are over 200 million guns.  That is a formidable army, even for our military.  However, that leads to the second point...
> 
> 2.  The military would not obey an order from the civilian government to go to war with the people of the United States.  It would be an 'unlawful' order.  At best, if it ever came to brass tacks and we had to defend ourselves from our own government, at best, we are looking at the combined law enforcement agencies controlled by the Feds.  They are, in their own right, quite a force, but not one that could take the entirety of the US population; or those who are armed and resisting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. There are 200 million guns, yes.  But not even a fraction of that many households that actually have the guns.  Many households with guns have multiple guns.
> 
> 2.  And who are you going to get to lead your Army?  Are you aware it's against the law to openly preach about an armed overthrow of the United States of America?  It's one thing to do it as an individual but when you do it large scale, that's considered treason and subject to arrest, prosecution and imprisonment.  If you continue to do so while incarcerated, you may find yourself living in solitary confinement in Levenworth or one of the Super Max Prisons.
> 
> 3.  Now that you have decided to raise your army, just how are you going to mobilize it.  Logistics is a nightmare.  Are you going to practice it?  Once again, treason gets in the way here.
> 
> 4.  You are assuming that all or most gun owners will take up arms with you.  Newsflash:  Don't look for anything like that.  Most of us Gun Owners think the people running around the woods playing war are a bunch of nutcases and are probably right.  If push comes to shove, most are likely to become part of the Organized Militia and get the really good stuff.
> 
> 5.  You forget, the US Military CAN and WILL defend against the enemy(s) of the United States and the Constitution if authorized by the President and Congress in country.  If you raise an million man army, and decide to take over parts of the country, you are now an enemy of the State and are no longer considered Citizens by your own admission.  The US can raise a few million very quickly by using Active, Reserve, National Guard, State Guard and Organized Militia.  The Organized Militia would take a bit longer but the first three could be done in a matter of days.  Logistics would take a couple of weeks to get them into place.  Meanwhile, you are still trying to get your people mobilized.
> 
> It's an impossible pipe nightmare on your part.  But if you want to try, be my guest.  The Graveyards and Prisons have room to spare for your "Army".
Click to expand...




> 1. There are 200 million guns, yes.  But not even a fraction of that many households that actually have the guns.  Many households with guns have multiple guns.



Might be true, but we would share, you know that, right?



> 2.  And who are you going to get to lead your Army?  Are you aware it's against the law to openly preach about an armed overthrow of the United States of America?  It's one thing to do it as an individual but when you do it large scale, that's considered treason and subject to arrest, prosecution and imprisonment.  If you continue to do so while incarcerated, you may find yourself living in solitary confinement in Levenworth or one of the Super Max Prisons.



Probably a former Military Leader that has left the Military and agrees with the Militia, but that's just my opinion. And opinion, what if's and such are not illegal. And since no one is calling for an overthrow of the government, your attempt to stifle free expression is telling. I'll take a small part of that back, there is a group called "resistance" that appears to be, but that, again, is opinion on my part. I don't have the entire guestbook for Levenworth or the Super Max Prisons, I doubt any of these misguided souls are housed in em.

Of course, I guess we need to arrest all those gamers that are online right now, from the United States that are playing games in which they role play as the adversary of the United States? Them Prisons are gonna get PACKED.



> 3.  Now that you have decided to raise your army, just how are you going to mobilize it.  Logistics is a nightmare.  Are you going to practice it?  Once again, treason gets in the way here.



Your attempt to stifle free speech is laughable. No one, and let me repeat, NO ONE, is advocating nor scheming an over throw of the Government, with the possible exception of "Resistance" which somehow mobilizes quite nicely. Are you saying that someone practiced with them? Interesting.



> 4.  You are assuming that all or most gun owners will take up arms with you.  Newsflash:  Don't look for anything like that.  Most of us Gun Owners think the people running around the woods playing war are a bunch of nutcases and are probably right.  If push comes to shove, most are likely to become part of the Organized Militia and get the really good stuff.



And you assume that most would not. You also assume the standing Army would attack their own countrymen, which many would, but many more would not. Kinda bad form to attack Daddy and the siblings. OH, I HAVE NO DOUBT YOU WOULD THOUGH. Lets just hope we never have to find out.



> 5.  You forget, the US Military CAN and WILL defend against the enemy(s) of the United States and the Constitution if authorized by the President and Congress in country.  If you raise an million man army, and decide to take over parts of the country, you are now an enemy of the State and are no longer considered Citizens by your own admission.  The US can raise a few million very quickly by using Active, Reserve, National Guard, State Guard and Organized Militia.  The Organized Militia would take a bit longer but the first three could be done in a matter of days.  Logistics would take a couple of weeks to get them into place.  Meanwhile, you are still trying to get your people mobilized.



Where do I start?

1. Lets hope that our Military never has to either defend these shores, or defend them from their own. You seem to fantasize about this quite a bit. Why? Because others disagree with you?

2. More fantasy. You looking to whip something up? Baiting?

3. More fantasy about drawing up more into the military? Is that the only place you felt strong?

4.  "Your People", and all along I thought we were all the same "people". You really want to divide a strong nation? Tell me exactly the treason thingy again?


----------



## Pop23

bodecea said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you have never shown how you determine that it is collective.   Plural is a given, since the individual right is for an entire population.  But collective?  How do you make that determination?   (granted, you have never answered that question, so I don't expect you will this time)
> 
> 
> 
> The _militia_ and the body politic of the _People_, along with the _security needs of a free State_ are all, collective and plural; coincidence or well regulated conspiracy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The militia is made up of citizen soldiers.  They maintain their own weapons, but can be called upon to defend our nation if we are attacked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree when it was before the weapons costs so danged much.  You could afford anything the Military could except for artillery.  And if you were rich enough, you could afford even an artillery piece or two as well.  After 1850, the cost of war went up exponentially.  All of a sudden, the Gatlin was introduced, followed closely by the Hotchkin Canon, the Rocket Launchers, Aerial Bombs, Mortars, Howitzers and more.  The cost of war outstripped even the richest people.  Only Governments could afford those expenditures.  It was back to the days where the King was the only one that could afford to outfit his Knights with the proper equipment to wage war.  Without even knowing it, the 2nd amendment included something about an Organized Militia where the State would equip it's own Army.  The State could afford many of the weapons or war far beyond the individual.  What they didn't foresee was the power and the cost of the weapons to even outstrip anything even the State could afford.  Now,only the Federals can afford these weapons by pooling all the States Funds together.  If a State were to put together an Organized Militia from the weapons you had and the weapons it actually owned it would not be able to stand the first battle with the Federals.  The National  Guard's Weapons aren't owned by the State, they are owned by the Feds.
> 
> Now, where does that leave the first half of the 2nd amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Two issues about this come to mind.
> 
> 1.  In this country, there are over 200 million guns.  That is a formidable army, even for our military.  However, that leads to the second point...
> 
> 2.  The military would not obey an order from the civilian government to go to war with the people of the United States.  It would be an 'unlawful' order.  At best, if it ever came to brass tacks and we had to defend ourselves from our own government, at best, we are looking at the combined law enforcement agencies controlled by the Feds.  They are, in their own right, quite a force, but not one that could take the entirety of the US population; or those who are armed and resisting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where do you get the confidence to believe #2 to be true?
Click to expand...


And you are confident that a soldiers gonna attack Mom?


----------



## Pop23

bodecea said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The militia is made up of citizen soldiers.  They maintain their own weapons, but can be called upon to defend our nation if we are attacked.
> 
> 
> 
> nothing but diversion?  all of those terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Collective?   You have yet to defend your reasoning behind insisting it is a collective right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is self evident.  both terms militia and the people are collective and plural as is the context regarding the security of a free State.
> 
> Only the clueless and Causeless right wing, never gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What does
> "the RIGHT of the INDIVIDUAL"
> 
> mean then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The entire 2nd Amendment, and I quote:  "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".
> 
> No "the RIGHT of the INDIVIDUAL" there at all.
Click to expand...


Additionall, No "the right of the people of the miltia to keep and bear arms.........   either

Strange, it would seem so simple


----------



## westwall

bodecea said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The militia is made up of citizen soldiers.  They maintain their own weapons, but can be called upon to defend our nation if we are attacked.
> 
> 
> 
> nothing but diversion?  all of those terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Collective?   You have yet to defend your reasoning behind insisting it is a collective right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is self evident.  both terms militia and the people are collective and plural as is the context regarding the security of a free State.
> 
> Only the clueless and Causeless right wing, never gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What does
> "the RIGHT of the INDIVIDUAL"
> 
> mean then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The entire 2nd Amendment, and I quote:  "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".
> 
> No "the RIGHT of the INDIVIDUAL" there at all.
Click to expand...






Indeed, however, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime" in Article V makes it very clear that we are dealing with the INDIVIDUAL.  Or do you think that person only applies to a bunch of people?  You can singularly destroy any one single person, but if there are a bunch of them they suddenly have Rights?


----------



## Pop23

WinterBorn said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  Yes, they are.  That is why, States are important.  They recognize and secure natural and individal rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, states are important.  I never said otherwise.  But the basic rights are listed in the US Constitution, and cannot be overruled by any state.  The US Constitution guarantees certain rights to all citizens.  The states may expand on those, but they cannot take them away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is why most Amendments are so vague.  It's designed for the states to design it to fit themselves.  The only exception is when it's an absolute human right.  And you can't equate owning a firearm with breathing air or being locked up without due course.  It's just not the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree.
> 
> The right to defend your own life is just as important as breathing.
> We all have the absolute right to defend ourselves by the most effective means possible and the most effective tool for the purpose of self defense , at least right now, is a firearm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are many degrees of defense.  You use the ones most appropriate to the situation.  I didn't used to need a firearm to stop an intruder that was not armed with a firearm.  I am too old to do that anymore.  But there are other ways to do without shooting them.  Most home invaders aren't armed.  They are not invading.  They are there to steal and picked what they thought was an unoccupied house.  A Baseball Bat works wonders.  So does a gun but (pardon the pun) that's a bit of an overkill unless you are my age.  In my younger days, that intruder wouldn't have stood a tinkers chance and a gun would not have been necessary or even a baseball bat.  But age creeps up on all of us if we are lucky enough to reach it.  Usually, just yelling, letting them know the house is occupied is enough to send them scurrying.  Of course, yelling, I have a Gun usually does the trick as well.  Most of the time, a Dog does a better job.  Reminds me of a Joke.
> 
> A Burglar broke into a house that he knew the occupants were on vacation.  He sees a Parrot.  The Parrot says, "God is Watching".  The Burglar ignores the bird and goes over to the stereo and unplugs it.  Burglar goes over to the Big Screen TV.  The Parrot says again, "God is Watching You".  The Burglar says, "Who in their right mind would name a Parrot God".  The Parrot said, "No one.  But they would name the Rotwieller that is watching you God though".  Grrrr.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with part of what you said.  In my younger days, most unarmed burglars wouldn't stand a chance.  But I am older now.  Also, how do you tell whether or not the intruder is armed?  I refuse to put my life, and the lives of my loved ones, in the hands of a criminals decision to carry or not carry.  Yes, most home intruders are only interested in stealing something.  But that is not always the case.  Again, how do you tell?
> 
> If someone breaks into my house, they will be shot.  If it is by me, they will be shot until they are no longer a threat.  If it is by my sweetheart, they will be shot until she runs out of bullets.  If they are VERY lucky, they will convincingly surrender after being shot with the first round, which is a shotshell.  Otherwise defensive rounds will follow.
Click to expand...


But not until you go through Daryls defensive checklist, right? And if you don't have a pen to check all the boxes, just ask the invader if he has a pen. I'm sure he will stop raping the wife so you can fill out your form. He wouldn't want to be overkilled!


----------



## bodecea

westwall said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> nothing but diversion?  all of those terms are collective and plural.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Collective?   You have yet to defend your reasoning behind insisting it is a collective right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is self evident.  both terms militia and the people are collective and plural as is the context regarding the security of a free State.
> 
> Only the clueless and Causeless right wing, never gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What does
> "the RIGHT of the INDIVIDUAL"
> 
> mean then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The entire 2nd Amendment, and I quote:  "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".
> 
> No "the RIGHT of the INDIVIDUAL" there at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, however, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime" in Article V makes it very clear that we are dealing with the INDIVIDUAL.  Or do you think that person only applies to a bunch of people?  You can singularly destroy any one single person, but if there are a bunch of them they suddenly have Rights?
Click to expand...

So, we are not talking about the 2nd Amendment anymore?


----------



## Pop23

bodecea said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Collective?   You have yet to defend your reasoning behind insisting it is a collective right.
> 
> 
> 
> it is self evident.  both terms militia and the people are collective and plural as is the context regarding the security of a free State.
> 
> Only the clueless and Causeless right wing, never gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What does
> "the RIGHT of the INDIVIDUAL"
> 
> mean then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The entire 2nd Amendment, and I quote:  "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".
> 
> No "the RIGHT of the INDIVIDUAL" there at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, however, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime" in Article V makes it very clear that we are dealing with the INDIVIDUAL.  Or do you think that person only applies to a bunch of people?  You can singularly destroy any one single person, but if there are a bunch of them they suddenly have Rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, we are not talking about the 2nd Amendment anymore?
Click to expand...


We are. You on the other hand seems to be daydreaming about strafing your fellow Americans with an A-10.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Pop23 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, states are important.  I never said otherwise.  But the basic rights are listed in the US Constitution, and cannot be overruled by any state.  The US Constitution guarantees certain rights to all citizens.  The states may expand on those, but they cannot take them away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is why most Amendments are so vague.  It's designed for the states to design it to fit themselves.  The only exception is when it's an absolute human right.  And you can't equate owning a firearm with breathing air or being locked up without due course.  It's just not the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree.
> 
> The right to defend your own life is just as important as breathing.
> We all have the absolute right to defend ourselves by the most effective means possible and the most effective tool for the purpose of self defense , at least right now, is a firearm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are many degrees of defense.  You use the ones most appropriate to the situation.  I didn't used to need a firearm to stop an intruder that was not armed with a firearm.  I am too old to do that anymore.  But there are other ways to do without shooting them.  Most home invaders aren't armed.  They are not invading.  They are there to steal and picked what they thought was an unoccupied house.  A Baseball Bat works wonders.  So does a gun but (pardon the pun) that's a bit of an overkill unless you are my age.  In my younger days, that intruder wouldn't have stood a tinkers chance and a gun would not have been necessary or even a baseball bat.  But age creeps up on all of us if we are lucky enough to reach it.  Usually, just yelling, letting them know the house is occupied is enough to send them scurrying.  Of course, yelling, I have a Gun usually does the trick as well.  Most of the time, a Dog does a better job.  Reminds me of a Joke.
> 
> A Burglar broke into a house that he knew the occupants were on vacation.  He sees a Parrot.  The Parrot says, "God is Watching".  The Burglar ignores the bird and goes over to the stereo and unplugs it.  Burglar goes over to the Big Screen TV.  The Parrot says again, "God is Watching You".  The Burglar says, "Who in their right mind would name a Parrot God".  The Parrot said, "No one.  But they would name the Rotwieller that is watching you God though".  Grrrr.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with part of what you said.  In my younger days, most unarmed burglars wouldn't stand a chance.  But I am older now.  Also, how do you tell whether or not the intruder is armed?  I refuse to put my life, and the lives of my loved ones, in the hands of a criminals decision to carry or not carry.  Yes, most home intruders are only interested in stealing something.  But that is not always the case.  Again, how do you tell?
> 
> If someone breaks into my house, they will be shot.  If it is by me, they will be shot until they are no longer a threat.  If it is by my sweetheart, they will be shot until she runs out of bullets.  If they are VERY lucky, they will convincingly surrender after being shot with the first round, which is a shotshell.  Otherwise defensive rounds will follow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But not until you go through Daryls defensive checklist, right? And if you don't have a pen to check all the boxes, just ask the invader if he has a pen. I'm sure he will stop raping the wife so you can fill out your form. He wouldn't want to be overkilled!
Click to expand...


Write fast and reload even faster, is that it?  You people just love to kill something.  Well, cupcakes, it's not something to look foreword to for any sane person.  I guess that leaves you wanna be "Revolutionaries" out of it.


----------



## Pop23

Daryl Hunt said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is why most Amendments are so vague.  It's designed for the states to design it to fit themselves.  The only exception is when it's an absolute human right.  And you can't equate owning a firearm with breathing air or being locked up without due course.  It's just not the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree.
> 
> The right to defend your own life is just as important as breathing.
> We all have the absolute right to defend ourselves by the most effective means possible and the most effective tool for the purpose of self defense , at least right now, is a firearm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are many degrees of defense.  You use the ones most appropriate to the situation.  I didn't used to need a firearm to stop an intruder that was not armed with a firearm.  I am too old to do that anymore.  But there are other ways to do without shooting them.  Most home invaders aren't armed.  They are not invading.  They are there to steal and picked what they thought was an unoccupied house.  A Baseball Bat works wonders.  So does a gun but (pardon the pun) that's a bit of an overkill unless you are my age.  In my younger days, that intruder wouldn't have stood a tinkers chance and a gun would not have been necessary or even a baseball bat.  But age creeps up on all of us if we are lucky enough to reach it.  Usually, just yelling, letting them know the house is occupied is enough to send them scurrying.  Of course, yelling, I have a Gun usually does the trick as well.  Most of the time, a Dog does a better job.  Reminds me of a Joke.
> 
> A Burglar broke into a house that he knew the occupants were on vacation.  He sees a Parrot.  The Parrot says, "God is Watching".  The Burglar ignores the bird and goes over to the stereo and unplugs it.  Burglar goes over to the Big Screen TV.  The Parrot says again, "God is Watching You".  The Burglar says, "Who in their right mind would name a Parrot God".  The Parrot said, "No one.  But they would name the Rotwieller that is watching you God though".  Grrrr.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with part of what you said.  In my younger days, most unarmed burglars wouldn't stand a chance.  But I am older now.  Also, how do you tell whether or not the intruder is armed?  I refuse to put my life, and the lives of my loved ones, in the hands of a criminals decision to carry or not carry.  Yes, most home intruders are only interested in stealing something.  But that is not always the case.  Again, how do you tell?
> 
> If someone breaks into my house, they will be shot.  If it is by me, they will be shot until they are no longer a threat.  If it is by my sweetheart, they will be shot until she runs out of bullets.  If they are VERY lucky, they will convincingly surrender after being shot with the first round, which is a shotshell.  Otherwise defensive rounds will follow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But not until you go through Daryls defensive checklist, right? And if you don't have a pen to check all the boxes, just ask the invader if he has a pen. I'm sure he will stop raping the wife so you can fill out your form. He wouldn't want to be overkilled!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Write fast and reload even faster, is that it?  You people just love to kill something.  Well, cupcakes, it's not something to look foreword to for any sane person.  I guess that leaves you wanna be "Revolutionaries" out of it.
Click to expand...


The only one jonesing for a Revolution is you dumblefuck.

The rest of just love watching your baiting fail miserably.

Gonna report me to the DOJ?


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Pop23 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree.
> 
> The right to defend your own life is just as important as breathing.
> We all have the absolute right to defend ourselves by the most effective means possible and the most effective tool for the purpose of self defense , at least right now, is a firearm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are many degrees of defense.  You use the ones most appropriate to the situation.  I didn't used to need a firearm to stop an intruder that was not armed with a firearm.  I am too old to do that anymore.  But there are other ways to do without shooting them.  Most home invaders aren't armed.  They are not invading.  They are there to steal and picked what they thought was an unoccupied house.  A Baseball Bat works wonders.  So does a gun but (pardon the pun) that's a bit of an overkill unless you are my age.  In my younger days, that intruder wouldn't have stood a tinkers chance and a gun would not have been necessary or even a baseball bat.  But age creeps up on all of us if we are lucky enough to reach it.  Usually, just yelling, letting them know the house is occupied is enough to send them scurrying.  Of course, yelling, I have a Gun usually does the trick as well.  Most of the time, a Dog does a better job.  Reminds me of a Joke.
> 
> A Burglar broke into a house that he knew the occupants were on vacation.  He sees a Parrot.  The Parrot says, "God is Watching".  The Burglar ignores the bird and goes over to the stereo and unplugs it.  Burglar goes over to the Big Screen TV.  The Parrot says again, "God is Watching You".  The Burglar says, "Who in their right mind would name a Parrot God".  The Parrot said, "No one.  But they would name the Rotwieller that is watching you God though".  Grrrr.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with part of what you said.  In my younger days, most unarmed burglars wouldn't stand a chance.  But I am older now.  Also, how do you tell whether or not the intruder is armed?  I refuse to put my life, and the lives of my loved ones, in the hands of a criminals decision to carry or not carry.  Yes, most home intruders are only interested in stealing something.  But that is not always the case.  Again, how do you tell?
> 
> If someone breaks into my house, they will be shot.  If it is by me, they will be shot until they are no longer a threat.  If it is by my sweetheart, they will be shot until she runs out of bullets.  If they are VERY lucky, they will convincingly surrender after being shot with the first round, which is a shotshell.  Otherwise defensive rounds will follow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But not until you go through Daryls defensive checklist, right? And if you don't have a pen to check all the boxes, just ask the invader if he has a pen. I'm sure he will stop raping the wife so you can fill out your form. He wouldn't want to be overkilled!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Write fast and reload even faster, is that it?  You people just love to kill something.  Well, cupcakes, it's not something to look foreword to for any sane person.  I guess that leaves you wanna be "Revolutionaries" out of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only one jonesing for a Revolution is you dumblefuck.
> 
> The rest of just love watching your baiting fail miserably.
> 
> Gonna report me to the DOJ?
Click to expand...


The Department of Jerks already has you on file.


----------



## Pop23

Daryl Hunt said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are many degrees of defense.  You use the ones most appropriate to the situation.  I didn't used to need a firearm to stop an intruder that was not armed with a firearm.  I am too old to do that anymore.  But there are other ways to do without shooting them.  Most home invaders aren't armed.  They are not invading.  They are there to steal and picked what they thought was an unoccupied house.  A Baseball Bat works wonders.  So does a gun but (pardon the pun) that's a bit of an overkill unless you are my age.  In my younger days, that intruder wouldn't have stood a tinkers chance and a gun would not have been necessary or even a baseball bat.  But age creeps up on all of us if we are lucky enough to reach it.  Usually, just yelling, letting them know the house is occupied is enough to send them scurrying.  Of course, yelling, I have a Gun usually does the trick as well.  Most of the time, a Dog does a better job.  Reminds me of a Joke.
> 
> A Burglar broke into a house that he knew the occupants were on vacation.  He sees a Parrot.  The Parrot says, "God is Watching".  The Burglar ignores the bird and goes over to the stereo and unplugs it.  Burglar goes over to the Big Screen TV.  The Parrot says again, "God is Watching You".  The Burglar says, "Who in their right mind would name a Parrot God".  The Parrot said, "No one.  But they would name the Rotwieller that is watching you God though".  Grrrr.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with part of what you said.  In my younger days, most unarmed burglars wouldn't stand a chance.  But I am older now.  Also, how do you tell whether or not the intruder is armed?  I refuse to put my life, and the lives of my loved ones, in the hands of a criminals decision to carry or not carry.  Yes, most home intruders are only interested in stealing something.  But that is not always the case.  Again, how do you tell?
> 
> If someone breaks into my house, they will be shot.  If it is by me, they will be shot until they are no longer a threat.  If it is by my sweetheart, they will be shot until she runs out of bullets.  If they are VERY lucky, they will convincingly surrender after being shot with the first round, which is a shotshell.  Otherwise defensive rounds will follow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But not until you go through Daryls defensive checklist, right? And if you don't have a pen to check all the boxes, just ask the invader if he has a pen. I'm sure he will stop raping the wife so you can fill out your form. He wouldn't want to be overkilled!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Write fast and reload even faster, is that it?  You people just love to kill something.  Well, cupcakes, it's not something to look foreword to for any sane person.  I guess that leaves you wanna be "Revolutionaries" out of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only one jonesing for a Revolution is you dumblefuck.
> 
> The rest of just love watching your baiting fail miserably.
> 
> Gonna report me to the DOJ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Department of Jerks already has you on file.
Click to expand...


Yeah, prolly, the file titled, THIS DUDE KICKS PROGRESSIVE ASS!


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Daryl Hunt said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  Yes, they are.  That is why, States are important.  They recognize and secure natural and individal rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, states are important.  I never said otherwise.  But the basic rights are listed in the US Constitution, and cannot be overruled by any state.  The US Constitution guarantees certain rights to all citizens.  The states may expand on those, but they cannot take them away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is why most Amendments are so vague.  It's designed for the states to design it to fit themselves.  The only exception is when it's an absolute human right.  And you can't equate owning a firearm with breathing air or being locked up without due course.  It's just not the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are regulations restricting firearm ownership and carry.  But barring a reason to deny ownership, citizens of this country should be able to own a firearm.
> 
> As for the guarantee of not being locked up without due course, that has already been seriously damaged with the Patriot Act.
> 
> How about freedom of speech, the freedom to gather to protest, or the freedom to practice your religion?  Is owning a firearm equal to those?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s what we’re waiting for the Supreme Court to determine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And just how many times do they have to rule before you accept their ruling.
Click to expand...

It doesn't have anything to do with anyone accepting anything. 

The issue is getting the Court to determine the appropriate level of judicial review. 

If strict scrutiny is appropriate then the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment will be treated the same as the rights enshrined in the First Amendment.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Daryl Hunt said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no quibbling.  YOu are being corrected for your inaccurate claims.  You keep talking about others being clueless, and yet you claim the states are the source of our guaranteed rights.
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  Yes, they are.  That is why, States are important.  They recognize and secure natural and individal rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, states are important.  I never said otherwise.  But the basic rights are listed in the US Constitution, and cannot be overruled by any state.  The US Constitution guarantees certain rights to all citizens.  The states may expand on those, but they cannot take them away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is why most Amendments are so vague.  It's designed for the states to design it to fit themselves.  The only exception is when it's an absolute human right.  And you can't equate owning a firearm with breathing air or being locked up without due course.  It's just not the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree.
> 
> The right to defend your own life is just as important as breathing.
> We all have the absolute right to defend ourselves by the most effective means possible and the most effective tool for the purpose of self defense , at least right now, is a firearm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are many degrees of defense.  You use the ones most appropriate to the situation.  I didn't used to need a firearm to stop an intruder that was not armed with a firearm.  I am too old to do that anymore.  But there are other ways to do without shooting them.  Most home invaders aren't armed.  They are not invading.  They are there to steal and picked what they thought was an unoccupied house.  A Baseball Bat works wonders.  So does a gun but (pardon the pun) that's a bit of an overkill unless you are my age.  In my younger days, that intruder wouldn't have stood a tinkers chance and a gun would not have been necessary or even a baseball bat.  But age creeps up on all of us if we are lucky enough to reach it.  Usually, just yelling, letting them know the house is occupied is enough to send them scurrying.  Of course, yelling, I have a Gun usually does the trick as well.  Most of the time, a Dog does a better job.  Reminds me of a Joke.
> 
> A Burglar broke into a house that he knew the occupants were on vacation.  He sees a Parrot.  The Parrot says, "God is Watching".  The Burglar ignores the bird and goes over to the stereo and unplugs it.  Burglar goes over to the Big Screen TV.  The Parrot says again, "God is Watching You".  The Burglar says, "Who in their right mind would name a Parrot God".  The Parrot said, "No one.  But they would name the Rotwieller that is watching you God though".  Grrrr.
Click to expand...


And there are times when a firearm may be necessary.

Your argument changes nothing.

I have the absolute right to defend myself and that defense can include any number of tools including a firearm.

And in all your imaginary scenarios you leave out the one time when all those alternative defense strategies fail.

It only takes one time for any of those things to fail and then it's too late.

And you can sympathize with a piece of shit criminal all you want but as far as I'm concerned if a person has the balls to break into my home while I am there he is not simply looking for something to steal.  I assume and rightly so that he is willing to confront, assault or attempt to subdue me and/or my wife


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

there4eyeM said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You make zero sense.  The actual words in our Second Amendment clearly declare what is Necessary to the security of a free State; it is mostly definitely not, the whole and entire concept of natural and individual rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is you who are confused.  So that the State CAN remain free, it is essential that the natural Right of defense be acknowledged.  Firearms ownership by the PEOPLE is how that is maintained.  Not the government, the PEOPLE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you follow current events?  Imagine small arms held by the Syrian People, against the 20th Century war planes dropping ordinance and chemical weapons.  Whose winning those engagements?
> 
> Then consider the effect if citizens could own the arms capable of engaging a 21st century military force in the US?   In my opinion, having served on a Destroyer in the late 60's, how that vessel would have done against the 21st Century Navy - not well and not for long.
> 
> Your reasoning is absurd.  Today the cost and size of our military, and the training, cannot be defeated or even slowed by a civilian force, and even if the arms of war were legal in the US.  Have you thought about how these arms might be used in small engagements against the civilian population (think criminal gangs).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I think an armed civilian population could fare reasonably well against our gov't.   First of all, you are correct that our military could decimate a population armed with small arms.  But would they be able to do so without decimating the entire civilian population?   Remember the uproar when our military shot up unarmed civilians in Iraq?   Now imagine that being US citizens.  The armed population would blend in with the rest of the population.   It would not be a matter of defeating the US military, but doing enough damage to force them to engage and then take enough damage to force public opinion into the equation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Disagree.
> 
> An armed civilian population would fare poorly against the US military.
> 
> And as we demonstrated during the Civil War, Americans have no problem slaughtering their fellow Americans in large numbers.
> 
> Otherwise, there is nothing in the text, history, or case law of the Second Amendment that authorizes citizens who subjectively perceive the government to have become ‘tyrannical’ to take up arms against a duly and lawfully elected government representing the will of the majority of the American people – the Second Amendment doesn’t ‘trump’ the First Amendment, the people have the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances through the political or judicial process, not by force of arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unarmed Americans were unhesitatingly shot at Kent State. What makes anyone think the military would not fire on armed rebels?
Click to expand...

No idea.

You'll have to ask someone who believes in the false notion that the Second Amendment authorizes citizens to take up arms against a lawfully elected government.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Daryl Hunt said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is why most Amendments are so vague.  It's designed for the states to design it to fit themselves.  The only exception is when it's an absolute human right.  And you can't equate owning a firearm with breathing air or being locked up without due course.  It's just not the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree.
> 
> The right to defend your own life is just as important as breathing.
> We all have the absolute right to defend ourselves by the most effective means possible and the most effective tool for the purpose of self defense , at least right now, is a firearm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are many degrees of defense.  You use the ones most appropriate to the situation.  I didn't used to need a firearm to stop an intruder that was not armed with a firearm.  I am too old to do that anymore.  But there are other ways to do without shooting them.  Most home invaders aren't armed.  They are not invading.  They are there to steal and picked what they thought was an unoccupied house.  A Baseball Bat works wonders.  So does a gun but (pardon the pun) that's a bit of an overkill unless you are my age.  In my younger days, that intruder wouldn't have stood a tinkers chance and a gun would not have been necessary or even a baseball bat.  But age creeps up on all of us if we are lucky enough to reach it.  Usually, just yelling, letting them know the house is occupied is enough to send them scurrying.  Of course, yelling, I have a Gun usually does the trick as well.  Most of the time, a Dog does a better job.  Reminds me of a Joke.
> 
> A Burglar broke into a house that he knew the occupants were on vacation.  He sees a Parrot.  The Parrot says, "God is Watching".  The Burglar ignores the bird and goes over to the stereo and unplugs it.  Burglar goes over to the Big Screen TV.  The Parrot says again, "God is Watching You".  The Burglar says, "Who in their right mind would name a Parrot God".  The Parrot said, "No one.  But they would name the Rotwieller that is watching you God though".  Grrrr.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with part of what you said.  In my younger days, most unarmed burglars wouldn't stand a chance.  But I am older now.  Also, how do you tell whether or not the intruder is armed?  I refuse to put my life, and the lives of my loved ones, in the hands of a criminals decision to carry or not carry.  Yes, most home intruders are only interested in stealing something.  But that is not always the case.  Again, how do you tell?
> 
> If someone breaks into my house, they will be shot.  If it is by me, they will be shot until they are no longer a threat.  If it is by my sweetheart, they will be shot until she runs out of bullets.  If they are VERY lucky, they will convincingly surrender after being shot with the first round, which is a shotshell.  Otherwise defensive rounds will follow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But not until you go through Daryls defensive checklist, right? And if you don't have a pen to check all the boxes, just ask the invader if he has a pen. I'm sure he will stop raping the wife so you can fill out your form. He wouldn't want to be overkilled!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Write fast and reload even faster, is that it?  You people just love to kill something.  Well, cupcakes, it's not something to look foreword to for any sane person.  I guess that leaves you wanna be "Revolutionaries" out of it.
Click to expand...

I have no desire to kill anyone.


----------



## Pop23

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is you who are confused.  So that the State CAN remain free, it is essential that the natural Right of defense be acknowledged.  Firearms ownership by the PEOPLE is how that is maintained.  Not the government, the PEOPLE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you follow current events?  Imagine small arms held by the Syrian People, against the 20th Century war planes dropping ordinance and chemical weapons.  Whose winning those engagements?
> 
> Then consider the effect if citizens could own the arms capable of engaging a 21st century military force in the US?   In my opinion, having served on a Destroyer in the late 60's, how that vessel would have done against the 21st Century Navy - not well and not for long.
> 
> Your reasoning is absurd.  Today the cost and size of our military, and the training, cannot be defeated or even slowed by a civilian force, and even if the arms of war were legal in the US.  Have you thought about how these arms might be used in small engagements against the civilian population (think criminal gangs).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I think an armed civilian population could fare reasonably well against our gov't.   First of all, you are correct that our military could decimate a population armed with small arms.  But would they be able to do so without decimating the entire civilian population?   Remember the uproar when our military shot up unarmed civilians in Iraq?   Now imagine that being US citizens.  The armed population would blend in with the rest of the population.   It would not be a matter of defeating the US military, but doing enough damage to force them to engage and then take enough damage to force public opinion into the equation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Disagree.
> 
> An armed civilian population would fare poorly against the US military.
> 
> And as we demonstrated during the Civil War, Americans have no problem slaughtering their fellow Americans in large numbers.
> 
> Otherwise, there is nothing in the text, history, or case law of the Second Amendment that authorizes citizens who subjectively perceive the government to have become ‘tyrannical’ to take up arms against a duly and lawfully elected government representing the will of the majority of the American people – the Second Amendment doesn’t ‘trump’ the First Amendment, the people have the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances through the political or judicial process, not by force of arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unarmed Americans were unhesitatingly shot at Kent State. What makes anyone think the military would not fire on armed rebels?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No idea.
> 
> You'll have to ask someone who believes in the false notion that the Second Amendment authorizes citizens to take up arms against a lawfully elected government.
Click to expand...


You are assuming that will always be the case, that there will always be a lawfully elected Government in charge. In the History of the world we have seen where that has not always been true:

Coup d'état - Wikipedia

We can only hope that this would never happen here, but then again, we do have active groups like Resistance that would like nothing better than to topple the current Government.


----------



## danielpalos

Pop23 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is self evident.  both terms militia and the people are collective and plural as is the context regarding the security of a free State.
> 
> Only the clueless and Causeless right wing, never gets it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is not self evident.  There is nothing in the 2nd amendment that supports the idea that it is a collective right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Only if you appeal to ignorance of the terms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your claims might be taken seriously if you offered anything more than the claim that it is a collective right.  You offer no proof or evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't understand any serious arguments, right winger; telling stories is all you seem to know.
> 
> Every dictionary supports my story and not your story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because you say so?
> 
> Yeah, we get it, just like we get the part of the Second that obviously reads, "the right of the people, as part of an organized militia, shall not be infringed".
Click to expand...

lousy reading comprehension skills, right winger?  Ever dictionary supports my contention and not your contention.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is self evident.  both terms militia and the people are collective and plural as is the context regarding the security of a free State.
> 
> Only the clueless and Causeless right wing, never gets it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is not self evident.  There is nothing in the 2nd amendment that supports the idea that it is a collective right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Only if you appeal to ignorance of the terms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your claims might be taken seriously if you offered anything more than the claim that it is a collective right.  You offer no proof or evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't understand any serious arguments, right winger; telling stories is all you seem to know.
> 
> Every dictionary supports my story and not your story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The dictionary definition of the word "people" shows it to be plural.   No dictionary shows the definition to always be collective.
Click to expand...

plural, is all i need to deny and disparage the whole and entire right wing argument regarding individual rights.

Collective depends on usage; the militia and the people and the context, are plural and collective.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The People, if we have to quibble rights in our federal Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not quibbling.  I am correcting you.  And most constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court agree with me.  "People" is obviously plural.  But there is nothing to suggest it is collective.  You'll have to do better than insisting you are right and pleading to ignorance to have that play here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Nobody takes the right wing seriously about Constitutional law.  Story telling is what they are best at.
> 
> Plural and collective, is what the franchise is about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Plural is a given, since it guarantees a right to the population.
> 
> Collective is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The collective of the Body Politic, votes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the people have individual rights.   The word people is not always collective.  So unless you have some evidence that the word, as used in the 2nd amendment, is collective, your argument is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Civil rights apply to individuals, right winger.  We have the express terms in our Second Amendment, not right wing conspiracy, and fantasy.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is self evident.  both terms militia and the people are collective and plural as is the context regarding the security of a free State.
> 
> Only the clueless and Causeless right wing, never gets it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does
> "the RIGHT of the INDIVIDUAL"
> 
> mean then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> State Constitutions recognize and secure natural and individual and singular rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They do so under the restrictions of the US Constitution, which is the original source of guaranteed rights in this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  telling stories is all you know how to do, right wingers.
> 
> We have a Tenth Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed we do.    "*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."
> 
> Guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms is listed in the US Constitution.  A state cannot remove that guaranteed right.
Click to expand...

lol.  Nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise. 

Our Second Amendment is express, not implied.


----------



## danielpalos

peach174 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The _militia_ and the body politic of the _People_, along with the _security needs of a free State_ are all, collective and plural; coincidence or well regulated conspiracy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The militia is made up of citizen soldiers.  They maintain their own weapons, but can be called upon to defend our nation if we are attacked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nothing but diversion?  all of those terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Collective?   You have yet to defend your reasoning behind insisting it is a collective right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is self evident.  both terms militia and the people are collective and plural as is the context regarding the security of a free State.
> 
> Only the clueless and Causeless right wing, never gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Collective is Socialism.
> Individual right is freedom from Government.
> That includes The Federal Government which has no right to pass any laws on any of our Amendments.
> Written history proves this.
Click to expand...

Socialism starts with a social Contract.  Our federal Constitution is that form of contract.

Nobody takes the right wing seriously; telling stories is all they seem to know how to do.


----------



## WinterBorn

Daryl Hunt said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is why most Amendments are so vague.  It's designed for the states to design it to fit themselves.  The only exception is when it's an absolute human right.  And you can't equate owning a firearm with breathing air or being locked up without due course.  It's just not the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree.
> 
> The right to defend your own life is just as important as breathing.
> We all have the absolute right to defend ourselves by the most effective means possible and the most effective tool for the purpose of self defense , at least right now, is a firearm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are many degrees of defense.  You use the ones most appropriate to the situation.  I didn't used to need a firearm to stop an intruder that was not armed with a firearm.  I am too old to do that anymore.  But there are other ways to do without shooting them.  Most home invaders aren't armed.  They are not invading.  They are there to steal and picked what they thought was an unoccupied house.  A Baseball Bat works wonders.  So does a gun but (pardon the pun) that's a bit of an overkill unless you are my age.  In my younger days, that intruder wouldn't have stood a tinkers chance and a gun would not have been necessary or even a baseball bat.  But age creeps up on all of us if we are lucky enough to reach it.  Usually, just yelling, letting them know the house is occupied is enough to send them scurrying.  Of course, yelling, I have a Gun usually does the trick as well.  Most of the time, a Dog does a better job.  Reminds me of a Joke.
> 
> A Burglar broke into a house that he knew the occupants were on vacation.  He sees a Parrot.  The Parrot says, "God is Watching".  The Burglar ignores the bird and goes over to the stereo and unplugs it.  Burglar goes over to the Big Screen TV.  The Parrot says again, "God is Watching You".  The Burglar says, "Who in their right mind would name a Parrot God".  The Parrot said, "No one.  But they would name the Rotwieller that is watching you God though".  Grrrr.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with part of what you said.  In my younger days, most unarmed burglars wouldn't stand a chance.  But I am older now.  Also, how do you tell whether or not the intruder is armed?  I refuse to put my life, and the lives of my loved ones, in the hands of a criminals decision to carry or not carry.  Yes, most home intruders are only interested in stealing something.  But that is not always the case.  Again, how do you tell?
> 
> If someone breaks into my house, they will be shot.  If it is by me, they will be shot until they are no longer a threat.  If it is by my sweetheart, they will be shot until she runs out of bullets.  If they are VERY lucky, they will convincingly surrender after being shot with the first round, which is a shotshell.  Otherwise defensive rounds will follow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But not until you go through Daryls defensive checklist, right? And if you don't have a pen to check all the boxes, just ask the invader if he has a pen. I'm sure he will stop raping the wife so you can fill out your form. He wouldn't want to be overkilled!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Write fast and reload even faster, is that it?  You people just love to kill something.  Well, cupcakes, it's not something to look foreword to for any sane person.  I guess that leaves you wanna be "Revolutionaries" out of it.
Click to expand...


I do not look forward to it at all.  That is why I lock my doors and make it appear as though someone is home.   I do NOT want to take a human life.  But I will not risk my life or the lives of loved ones on the generosity of criminals.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does
> "the RIGHT of the INDIVIDUAL"
> 
> mean then?
> 
> 
> 
> State Constitutions recognize and secure natural and individual and singular rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They do so under the restrictions of the US Constitution, which is the original source of guaranteed rights in this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  telling stories is all you know how to do, right wingers.
> 
> We have a Tenth Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed we do.    "*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."
> 
> Guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms is listed in the US Constitution.  A state cannot remove that guaranteed right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.
> 
> Our Second Amendment is express, not implied.
Click to expand...


And, since that right is guaranteed by the US Constitution, the 10th amendment expressly states it is not left to the states.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is not self evident.  There is nothing in the 2nd amendment that supports the idea that it is a collective right.
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  Only if you appeal to ignorance of the terms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your claims might be taken seriously if you offered anything more than the claim that it is a collective right.  You offer no proof or evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't understand any serious arguments, right winger; telling stories is all you seem to know.
> 
> Every dictionary supports my story and not your story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The dictionary definition of the word "people" shows it to be plural.   No dictionary shows the definition to always be collective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> plural, is all i need to deny and disparage the whole and entire right wing argument regarding individual rights.
> 
> Collective depends on usage; the militia and the people and the context, are plural and collective.
Click to expand...


Militia might be contrued as collective.  But then again, it might not.   "People", as used in the context of the sentence is certainly not collective.  A "collective right"?   How does that work?


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Pop23 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with part of what you said.  In my younger days, most unarmed burglars wouldn't stand a chance.  But I am older now.  Also, how do you tell whether or not the intruder is armed?  I refuse to put my life, and the lives of my loved ones, in the hands of a criminals decision to carry or not carry.  Yes, most home intruders are only interested in stealing something.  But that is not always the case.  Again, how do you tell?
> 
> If someone breaks into my house, they will be shot.  If it is by me, they will be shot until they are no longer a threat.  If it is by my sweetheart, they will be shot until she runs out of bullets.  If they are VERY lucky, they will convincingly surrender after being shot with the first round, which is a shotshell.  Otherwise defensive rounds will follow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But not until you go through Daryls defensive checklist, right? And if you don't have a pen to check all the boxes, just ask the invader if he has a pen. I'm sure he will stop raping the wife so you can fill out your form. He wouldn't want to be overkilled!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Write fast and reload even faster, is that it?  You people just love to kill something.  Well, cupcakes, it's not something to look foreword to for any sane person.  I guess that leaves you wanna be "Revolutionaries" out of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only one jonesing for a Revolution is you dumblefuck.
> 
> The rest of just love watching your baiting fail miserably.
> 
> Gonna report me to the DOJ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Department of Jerks already has you on file.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, prolly, the file titled, THIS DUDE KICKS PROGRESSIVE ASS!
Click to expand...


Nope.  The cover letter reads, "This Jerk Sucks Eggs".


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not quibbling.  I am correcting you.  And most constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court agree with me.  "People" is obviously plural.  But there is nothing to suggest it is collective.  You'll have to do better than insisting you are right and pleading to ignorance to have that play here.
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  Nobody takes the right wing seriously about Constitutional law.  Story telling is what they are best at.
> 
> Plural and collective, is what the franchise is about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Plural is a given, since it guarantees a right to the population.
> 
> Collective is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The collective of the Body Politic, votes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the people have individual rights.   The word people is not always collective.  So unless you have some evidence that the word, as used in the 2nd amendment, is collective, your argument is ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Civil rights apply to individuals, right winger.  We have the express terms in our Second Amendment, not right wing conspiracy, and fantasy.
Click to expand...


The 2nd amendment applies to individuals as well.   The right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.   A collective does not bear arms, individuals bear arms.


----------



## Pop23

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is not self evident.  There is nothing in the 2nd amendment that supports the idea that it is a collective right.
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  Only if you appeal to ignorance of the terms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your claims might be taken seriously if you offered anything more than the claim that it is a collective right.  You offer no proof or evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't understand any serious arguments, right winger; telling stories is all you seem to know.
> 
> Every dictionary supports my story and not your story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The dictionary definition of the word "people" shows it to be plural.   No dictionary shows the definition to always be collective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> plural, is all i need to deny and disparage the whole and entire right wing argument regarding individual rights.
> 
> Collective depends on usage; the militia and the people and the context, are plural and collective.
Click to expand...


And that's why the Second didn't say the rights of the people within the Militia, to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Everyone but you are nuts, right?


----------



## Pop23

Daryl Hunt said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But not until you go through Daryls defensive checklist, right? And if you don't have a pen to check all the boxes, just ask the invader if he has a pen. I'm sure he will stop raping the wife so you can fill out your form. He wouldn't want to be overkilled!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Write fast and reload even faster, is that it?  You people just love to kill something.  Well, cupcakes, it's not something to look foreword to for any sane person.  I guess that leaves you wanna be "Revolutionaries" out of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only one jonesing for a Revolution is you dumblefuck.
> 
> The rest of just love watching your baiting fail miserably.
> 
> Gonna report me to the DOJ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Department of Jerks already has you on file.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, prolly, the file titled, THIS DUDE KICKS PROGRESSIVE ASS!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  The cover letter reads, "This Jerk Sucks Eggs".
Click to expand...


A call from Daryl to the DOJ:

ring, ring :

"This is Agent Smith, how can I help ya"

Daryl: "Yes Sir, I'd like to report treasonous activity on a web site I frequent:

Agent Smith: "OK, can you tell me about it"

Daryl: "Well, we've been discussing the 2nd Amendment and there are dudes on their, one in particular that is implying that the 2nd Amendment is about Citizens starting a Revolution"

Agent Smith: "Really?, can you send me a link"

Daryl: "Of Course" Daryl gets the agents email and sends a link, after a short while Agent Smith returns

Agent Smith: "Um, Daryl, I've gone through this whole thread and what I see is people discussing what the 2nd Amendment provides, and in some cases, opinions both sides have as to how effective an armed encounter with the Military, but I don't see anyone advocating the overthrow of the Government. What am I missing?"

Agent Smith is tapped on the shoulder as his Supervisor asks him to put the caller on hold.

Agent Smith: "Daryl, can I put you on hold? Thank you

Supervisor: "Is that that Daryl dude again?"

Agent Smith: "Yeah, how'd you know?"

Supervisor: "He's a regular, best thing you can do is just tell him we'll start a file on whoever he's reporting this time"

Agent Smith: "Oh, OK, do you really want me to start that file"

Supervisor: "Oh, hell no, just tell him that, the guy will go on for hours about Levenwoth, Super Max Prisons and Yada, Yada, Yada"

Agent Smith: "Hello Daryl, I spoke to my Supervisor and we're starting a file on Pop23. Don't you worry, we got this handled"

Click.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> State Constitutions recognize and secure natural and individual and singular rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They do so under the restrictions of the US Constitution, which is the original source of guaranteed rights in this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  telling stories is all you know how to do, right wingers.
> 
> We have a Tenth Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed we do.    "*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."
> 
> Guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms is listed in the US Constitution.  A state cannot remove that guaranteed right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.
> 
> Our Second Amendment is express, not implied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And, since that right is guaranteed by the US Constitution, the 10th amendment expressly states it is not left to the states.
Click to expand...

well regulated militia of the people have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; only the unorganized militia whines about gun control.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  Only if you appeal to ignorance of the terms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your claims might be taken seriously if you offered anything more than the claim that it is a collective right.  You offer no proof or evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't understand any serious arguments, right winger; telling stories is all you seem to know.
> 
> Every dictionary supports my story and not your story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The dictionary definition of the word "people" shows it to be plural.   No dictionary shows the definition to always be collective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> plural, is all i need to deny and disparage the whole and entire right wing argument regarding individual rights.
> 
> Collective depends on usage; the militia and the people and the context, are plural and collective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Militia might be contrued as collective.  But then again, it might not.   "People", as used in the context of the sentence is certainly not collective.  A "collective right"?   How does that work?
Click to expand...

all of those are collective and in their usage, along with the context.  

collective action is a requirement for any Body Politic, militia, and the security of a free State.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  Nobody takes the right wing seriously about Constitutional law.  Story telling is what they are best at.
> 
> Plural and collective, is what the franchise is about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plural is a given, since it guarantees a right to the population.
> 
> Collective is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The collective of the Body Politic, votes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the people have individual rights.   The word people is not always collective.  So unless you have some evidence that the word, as used in the 2nd amendment, is collective, your argument is ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Civil rights apply to individuals, right winger.  We have the express terms in our Second Amendment, not right wing conspiracy, and fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 2nd amendment applies to individuals as well.   The right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.   A collective does not bear arms, individuals bear arms.
Click to expand...

no, it isn't an Individual right; it is a civil right being applied to individuals.

that, is why, Nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.


----------



## danielpalos

Pop23 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  Only if you appeal to ignorance of the terms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your claims might be taken seriously if you offered anything more than the claim that it is a collective right.  You offer no proof or evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't understand any serious arguments, right winger; telling stories is all you seem to know.
> 
> Every dictionary supports my story and not your story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The dictionary definition of the word "people" shows it to be plural.   No dictionary shows the definition to always be collective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> plural, is all i need to deny and disparage the whole and entire right wing argument regarding individual rights.
> 
> Collective depends on usage; the militia and the people and the context, are plural and collective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that's why the Second didn't say the rights of the people within the Militia, to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Everyone but you are nuts, right?
Click to expand...

it says, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, are necessary.  the right wing merely needs to learn how to read.


----------



## Pop23

danielpalos said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your claims might be taken seriously if you offered anything more than the claim that it is a collective right.  You offer no proof or evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> You don't understand any serious arguments, right winger; telling stories is all you seem to know.
> 
> Every dictionary supports my story and not your story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The dictionary definition of the word "people" shows it to be plural.   No dictionary shows the definition to always be collective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> plural, is all i need to deny and disparage the whole and entire right wing argument regarding individual rights.
> 
> Collective depends on usage; the militia and the people and the context, are plural and collective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that's why the Second didn't say the rights of the people within the Militia, to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Everyone but you are nuts, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it says, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, are necessary.  the right wing merely needs to learn how to read.
Click to expand...


No it doesn't, but do blabber on


----------



## Pogo

Billy_Kinetta said:


> Applying 21st Century mores to 18th Century thinking is an exercise in vanity.



It might be, but the OP did the opposite; deliberately applied the environment of the *18th* Century.  That is, _its own_ time.

Your post is directly dishonest.


----------



## danielpalos

Pop23 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't understand any serious arguments, right winger; telling stories is all you seem to know.
> 
> Every dictionary supports my story and not your story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The dictionary definition of the word "people" shows it to be plural.   No dictionary shows the definition to always be collective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> plural, is all i need to deny and disparage the whole and entire right wing argument regarding individual rights.
> 
> Collective depends on usage; the militia and the people and the context, are plural and collective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that's why the Second didn't say the rights of the people within the Militia, to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Everyone but you are nuts, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it says, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, are necessary.  the right wing merely needs to learn how to read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesn't, but do blabber on
Click to expand...

yes, it does; the right wing has No Thing, but fallacy.


----------



## Pop23

danielpalos said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The dictionary definition of the word "people" shows it to be plural.   No dictionary shows the definition to always be collective.
> 
> 
> 
> plural, is all i need to deny and disparage the whole and entire right wing argument regarding individual rights.
> 
> Collective depends on usage; the militia and the people and the context, are plural and collective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that's why the Second didn't say the rights of the people within the Militia, to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Everyone but you are nuts, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it says, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, are necessary.  the right wing merely needs to learn how to read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesn't, but do blabber on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, it does; the right wing has No Thing, but fallacy.
Click to expand...


And that is why the founding fathers wrote "and the right to KEEP and BEAR arms by the MILITIA shall not be infringed"?

I know they were short on parchment, but......................


----------



## danielpalos

Pop23 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> plural, is all i need to deny and disparage the whole and entire right wing argument regarding individual rights.
> 
> Collective depends on usage; the militia and the people and the context, are plural and collective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that's why the Second didn't say the rights of the people within the Militia, to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Everyone but you are nuts, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it says, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, are necessary.  the right wing merely needs to learn how to read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesn't, but do blabber on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, it does; the right wing has No Thing, but fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that is why the founding fathers wrote "and the right to KEEP and BEAR arms by the MILITIA shall not be infringed"?
> 
> I know they were short on parchment, but......................
Click to expand...

You are short on understanding of what the militia is.

it says, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, are necessary.  the right wing merely needs to learn how to read.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
*— George Mason*_, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
_
A well regulated Militia _(of the whole Body Politic)_, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


----------



## westwall

bodecea said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Collective?   You have yet to defend your reasoning behind insisting it is a collective right.
> 
> 
> 
> it is self evident.  both terms militia and the people are collective and plural as is the context regarding the security of a free State.
> 
> Only the clueless and Causeless right wing, never gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What does
> "the RIGHT of the INDIVIDUAL"
> 
> mean then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The entire 2nd Amendment, and I quote:  "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".
> 
> No "the RIGHT of the INDIVIDUAL" there at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, however, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime" in Article V makes it very clear that we are dealing with the INDIVIDUAL.  Or do you think that person only applies to a bunch of people?  You can singularly destroy any one single person, but if there are a bunch of them they suddenly have Rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, we are not talking about the 2nd Amendment anymore?
Click to expand...







The Bill of Rights, save for this one 
_
Amendment X _
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.

Deals exclusively with INDIVIDUAL Rights.  The Tenth as you can see mentions individual States, but it also specifically names the PEOPLE as a SEPARATE entity from the State which blows the argument that the Bill of Rights is about collective Rights, right out of the water.  

 Funny how that works.


----------



## Pop23

danielpalos said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that's why the Second didn't say the rights of the people within the Militia, to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Everyone but you are nuts, right?
> 
> 
> 
> it says, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, are necessary.  the right wing merely needs to learn how to read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesn't, but do blabber on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, it does; the right wing has No Thing, but fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that is why the founding fathers wrote "and the right to KEEP and BEAR arms by the MILITIA shall not be infringed"?
> 
> I know they were short on parchment, but......................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are short on understanding of what the militia is.
> 
> it says, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, are necessary.  the right wing merely needs to learn how to read.
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> *— George Mason*_, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _
Click to expand...


Thanks again for explaining the part preceding the second comma, then if what you say is true, the part after the second paragraph was simply unnecessary, or would afford the right to "the Militia". Of course, neither is true


----------



## danielpalos

westwall said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is self evident.  both terms militia and the people are collective and plural as is the context regarding the security of a free State.
> 
> Only the clueless and Causeless right wing, never gets it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does
> "the RIGHT of the INDIVIDUAL"
> 
> mean then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The entire 2nd Amendment, and I quote:  "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".
> 
> No "the RIGHT of the INDIVIDUAL" there at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, however, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime" in Article V makes it very clear that we are dealing with the INDIVIDUAL.  Or do you think that person only applies to a bunch of people?  You can singularly destroy any one single person, but if there are a bunch of them they suddenly have Rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, we are not talking about the 2nd Amendment anymore?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Bill of Rights, save for this one
> _
> Amendment X _
> 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.
> 
> Deals exclusively with INDIVIDUAL Rights.  The Tenth as you can see mentions individual States, but it also specifically names the PEOPLE as a SEPARATE entity from the State which blows the argument that the Bill of Rights is about collective Rights, right out of the water.
> 
> Funny how that works.
Click to expand...

Our Second Amendment is about States' sovereign rights, not individual rights.


----------



## danielpalos

Pop23 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it says, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, are necessary.  the right wing merely needs to learn how to read.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't, but do blabber on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, it does; the right wing has No Thing, but fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that is why the founding fathers wrote "and the right to KEEP and BEAR arms by the MILITIA shall not be infringed"?
> 
> I know they were short on parchment, but......................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are short on understanding of what the militia is.
> 
> it says, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, are necessary.  the right wing merely needs to learn how to read.
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> *— George Mason*_, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks again for explaining the part preceding the second comma, then if what you say is true, the part after the second paragraph was simply unnecessary, or would afford the right to "the Militia". Of course, neither is true
Click to expand...

lol.  should i ask about your chart reading skills as well?  

The People are the Militia.  the people=the militia.  only the right wing, never gets it.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

Pogo said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> Applying 21st Century mores to 18th Century thinking is an exercise in vanity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It might be, but the OP did the opposite; deliberately applied the environment of the *18th* Century.  That is, _its own_ time.
Click to expand...


Through the filter of current thinking.


----------



## westwall

danielpalos said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does
> "the RIGHT of the INDIVIDUAL"
> 
> mean then?
> 
> 
> 
> The entire 2nd Amendment, and I quote:  "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".
> 
> No "the RIGHT of the INDIVIDUAL" there at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, however, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime" in Article V makes it very clear that we are dealing with the INDIVIDUAL.  Or do you think that person only applies to a bunch of people?  You can singularly destroy any one single person, but if there are a bunch of them they suddenly have Rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, we are not talking about the 2nd Amendment anymore?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Bill of Rights, save for this one
> _
> Amendment X _
> 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.
> 
> Deals exclusively with INDIVIDUAL Rights.  The Tenth as you can see mentions individual States, but it also specifically names the PEOPLE as a SEPARATE entity from the State which blows the argument that the Bill of Rights is about collective Rights, right out of the water.
> 
> Funny how that works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about States' sovereign rights, not individual rights.
Click to expand...








A laughable assertion because if that were true the PEOPLE would already be disarmed and all legal guns would be in the hands of the government.


----------



## Pop23

danielpalos said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't, but do blabber on
> 
> 
> 
> yes, it does; the right wing has No Thing, but fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that is why the founding fathers wrote "and the right to KEEP and BEAR arms by the MILITIA shall not be infringed"?
> 
> I know they were short on parchment, but......................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are short on understanding of what the militia is.
> 
> it says, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, are necessary.  the right wing merely needs to learn how to read.
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> *— George Mason*_, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks again for explaining the part preceding the second comma, then if what you say is true, the part after the second paragraph was simply unnecessary, or would afford the right to "the Militia". Of course, neither is true
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  should i ask about your chart reading skills as well?
> 
> The People are the Militia.  the people=the militia.  only the right wing, never gets it.
Click to expand...


Not according to the Second Amendment. It specifically changed Militia in part one to "the People" in part two. It does not read the right to keep and bear arms by the Militia shall not be infringed.


----------



## Pop23

westwall said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> The entire 2nd Amendment, and I quote:  "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".
> 
> No "the RIGHT of the INDIVIDUAL" there at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, however, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime" in Article V makes it very clear that we are dealing with the INDIVIDUAL.  Or do you think that person only applies to a bunch of people?  You can singularly destroy any one single person, but if there are a bunch of them they suddenly have Rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, we are not talking about the 2nd Amendment anymore?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Bill of Rights, save for this one
> _
> Amendment X _
> 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.
> 
> Deals exclusively with INDIVIDUAL Rights.  The Tenth as you can see mentions individual States, but it also specifically names the PEOPLE as a SEPARATE entity from the State which blows the argument that the Bill of Rights is about collective Rights, right out of the water.
> 
> Funny how that works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about States' sovereign rights, not individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A laughable assertion because if that were true the PEOPLE would already be disarmed and all legal guns would be in the hands of the government.
Click to expand...


That only makes sense


----------



## danielpalos

westwall said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> The entire 2nd Amendment, and I quote:  "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".
> 
> No "the RIGHT of the INDIVIDUAL" there at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, however, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime" in Article V makes it very clear that we are dealing with the INDIVIDUAL.  Or do you think that person only applies to a bunch of people?  You can singularly destroy any one single person, but if there are a bunch of them they suddenly have Rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, we are not talking about the 2nd Amendment anymore?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Bill of Rights, save for this one
> _
> Amendment X _
> 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.
> 
> Deals exclusively with INDIVIDUAL Rights.  The Tenth as you can see mentions individual States, but it also specifically names the PEOPLE as a SEPARATE entity from the State which blows the argument that the Bill of Rights is about collective Rights, right out of the water.
> 
> Funny how that works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about States' sovereign rights, not individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A laughable assertion because if that were true the PEOPLE would already be disarmed and all legal guns would be in the hands of the government.
Click to expand...

Our Second Amendment clearly declares what is Necessary to the security of our free States, it is most definitely not, the unorganized militia.


----------



## danielpalos

Pop23 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes, it does; the right wing has No Thing, but fallacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that is why the founding fathers wrote "and the right to KEEP and BEAR arms by the MILITIA shall not be infringed"?
> 
> I know they were short on parchment, but......................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are short on understanding of what the militia is.
> 
> it says, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, are necessary.  the right wing merely needs to learn how to read.
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> *— George Mason*_, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks again for explaining the part preceding the second comma, then if what you say is true, the part after the second paragraph was simply unnecessary, or would afford the right to "the Militia". Of course, neither is true
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  should i ask about your chart reading skills as well?
> 
> The People are the Militia.  the people=the militia.  only the right wing, never gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not according to the Second Amendment. It specifically changed Militia in part one to "the People" in part two. It does not read the right to keep and bear arms by the Militia shall not be infringed.
Click to expand...

nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.

The People are the Militia.


----------



## westwall

danielpalos said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, however, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime" in Article V makes it very clear that we are dealing with the INDIVIDUAL.  Or do you think that person only applies to a bunch of people?  You can singularly destroy any one single person, but if there are a bunch of them they suddenly have Rights?
> 
> 
> 
> So, we are not talking about the 2nd Amendment anymore?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Bill of Rights, save for this one
> _
> Amendment X _
> 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.
> 
> Deals exclusively with INDIVIDUAL Rights.  The Tenth as you can see mentions individual States, but it also specifically names the PEOPLE as a SEPARATE entity from the State which blows the argument that the Bill of Rights is about collective Rights, right out of the water.
> 
> Funny how that works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about States' sovereign rights, not individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A laughable assertion because if that were true the PEOPLE would already be disarmed and all legal guns would be in the hands of the government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment clearly declares what is Necessary to the security of our free States, it is most definitely not, the unorganized militia.
Click to expand...






Based on the fact that your fantasy world doesn't exist, my position is provably true.


----------



## Pogo

Billy_Kinetta said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> Applying 21st Century mores to 18th Century thinking is an exercise in vanity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It might be, but the OP did the opposite; deliberately applied the environment of the *18th* Century.  That is, _its own_ time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Through the filter of current thinking.
Click to expand...


Obviously the poster does not have the option to post his analysis in the 18th Century, now does he?

As I said, which you edited out, your attempted point is dishonest.  You directly accused the OP of doing the _opposite_ of what he actually did.  Which is also why you cut out the part where I called it dishonest.


----------



## there4eyeM

If the Constitution had been intended to be frozen in its time of origine, the thoughtful founders would have indicated that. Instead, amendments were the very first thing they did to the renewed Federal Constitution. Means of making amendments were included. What are we to make of that?


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

Pogo said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> Applying 21st Century mores to 18th Century thinking is an exercise in vanity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It might be, but the OP did the opposite; deliberately applied the environment of the *18th* Century.  That is, _its own_ time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Through the filter of current thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously the poster does not have the option to post his analysis in the 18th Century, now does he?
> 
> As I said, which you edited out, your attempted point is dishonest.  You directly accused the OP of doing the _opposite_ of what he actually did.  Which is also why you cut out the part where I called it dishonest.
Click to expand...


Because it is your opinion, and as you know, I dispense with your opinions without delay.


----------



## Pogo

Billy_Kinetta said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> Applying 21st Century mores to 18th Century thinking is an exercise in vanity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It might be, but the OP did the opposite; deliberately applied the environment of the *18th* Century.  That is, _its own_ time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Through the filter of current thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously the poster does not have the option to post his analysis in the 18th Century, now does he?
> 
> As I said, which you edited out, your attempted point is dishonest.  You directly accused the OP of doing the _opposite_ of what he actually did.  Which is also why you cut out the part where I called it dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because it is your opinion, and as you know, I dispense with your opinions without delay.
Click to expand...


Because I nailed your ass, that's why.
It isn't a matter of "opinion".  All I had to do was read your post and compare it to the OP.  Which is what you should have done.


----------



## Darkwind

danielpalos said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The militia is made up of citizen soldiers.  They maintain their own weapons, but can be called upon to defend our nation if we are attacked.
> 
> 
> 
> nothing but diversion?  all of those terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Collective?   You have yet to defend your reasoning behind insisting it is a collective right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is self evident.  both terms militia and the people are collective and plural as is the context regarding the security of a free State.
> 
> Only the clueless and Causeless right wing, never gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In fact, given that the entire document is set and predicated upon ensuring and safeguarding the rights and liberties of the individual, your statement fails any logic test.
> 
> The people is an artful way of saying that each individual enjoys the exact same protections under the law and that each individual's liberty is of concern to everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it isn't.  Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process in our federal Constitution.  The right wing is simply, clueless and Causeless.
Click to expand...

You have already degenerated into ad hominen attacks.  Do you know why?  Because every arguement you have made has been shot down and debunked by those here, and by top scholars around the country.  

You have resorted to repeating the same thing over and over and name calling.

I've finished in this thread as you are the only one making these absurd arguments and I don't get into "did too, did not" games.


----------



## Darkwind

Daryl Hunt said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you have never shown how you determine that it is collective.   Plural is a given, since the individual right is for an entire population.  But collective?  How do you make that determination?   (granted, you have never answered that question, so I don't expect you will this time)
> 
> 
> 
> The _militia_ and the body politic of the _People_, along with the _security needs of a free State_ are all, collective and plural; coincidence or well regulated conspiracy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The militia is made up of citizen soldiers.  They maintain their own weapons, but can be called upon to defend our nation if we are attacked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree when it was before the weapons costs so danged much.  You could afford anything the Military could except for artillery.  And if you were rich enough, you could afford even an artillery piece or two as well.  After 1850, the cost of war went up exponentially.  All of a sudden, the Gatlin was introduced, followed closely by the Hotchkin Canon, the Rocket Launchers, Aerial Bombs, Mortars, Howitzers and more.  The cost of war outstripped even the richest people.  Only Governments could afford those expenditures.  It was back to the days where the King was the only one that could afford to outfit his Knights with the proper equipment to wage war.  Without even knowing it, the 2nd amendment included something about an Organized Militia where the State would equip it's own Army.  The State could afford many of the weapons or war far beyond the individual.  What they didn't foresee was the power and the cost of the weapons to even outstrip anything even the State could afford.  Now,only the Federals can afford these weapons by pooling all the States Funds together.  If a State were to put together an Organized Militia from the weapons you had and the weapons it actually owned it would not be able to stand the first battle with the Federals.  The National  Guard's Weapons aren't owned by the State, they are owned by the Feds.
> 
> Now, where does that leave the first half of the 2nd amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Two issues about this come to mind.
> 
> 1.  In this country, there are over 200 million guns.  That is a formidable army, even for our military.  However, that leads to the second point...
> 
> 2.  The military would not obey an order from the civilian government to go to war with the people of the United States.  It would be an 'unlawful' order.  At best, if it ever came to brass tacks and we had to defend ourselves from our own government, at best, we are looking at the combined law enforcement agencies controlled by the Feds.  They are, in their own right, quite a force, but not one that could take the entirety of the US population; or those who are armed and resisting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. There are 200 million guns, yes.  But not even a fraction of that many households that actually have the guns.  Many households with guns have multiple guns.
> 
> 2.  And who are you going to get to lead your Army?  Are you aware it's against the law to openly preach about an armed overthrow of the United States of America?  It's one thing to do it as an individual but when you do it large scale, that's considered treason and subject to arrest, prosecution and imprisonment.  If you continue to do so while incarcerated, you may find yourself living in solitary confinement in Levenworth or one of the Super Max Prisons.
> 
> 3.  Now that you have decided to raise your army, just how are you going to mobilize it.  Logistics is a nightmare.  Are you going to practice it?  Once again, treason gets in the way here.
> 
> 4.  You are assuming that all or most gun owners will take up arms with you.  Newsflash:  Don't look for anything like that.  Most of us Gun Owners think the people running around the woods playing war are a bunch of nutcases and are probably right.  If push comes to shove, most are likely to become part of the Organized Militia and get the really good stuff.
> 
> 5.  You forget, the US Military CAN and WILL defend against the enemy(s) of the United States and the Constitution if authorized by the President and Congress in country.  If you raise an million man army, and decide to take over parts of the country, you are now an enemy of the State and are no longer considered Citizens by your own admission.  The US can raise a few million very quickly by using Active, Reserve, National Guard, State Guard and Organized Militia.  The Organized Militia would take a bit longer but the first three could be done in a matter of days.  Logistics would take a couple of weeks to get them into place.  Meanwhile, you are still trying to get your people mobilized.
> 
> It's an impossible pipe nightmare on your part.  But if you want to try, be my guest.  The Graveyards and Prisons have room to spare for your "Army".
Click to expand...

You need to carefully read what I wrote and HOW I wrote it.

The enemies of the United States can be the very government itself if it becomes an oppressive tyranny.

Tell Me something.  How did the militia in the late 18th century organize and effectively fight against the strongest military in the world?

I offered My opinion on what I think would happen in the eventuality that the government becomes oppressive.  Sorry you disagree.


----------



## danielpalos

westwall said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, we are not talking about the 2nd Amendment anymore?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Bill of Rights, save for this one
> _
> Amendment X _
> 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.
> 
> Deals exclusively with INDIVIDUAL Rights.  The Tenth as you can see mentions individual States, but it also specifically names the PEOPLE as a SEPARATE entity from the State which blows the argument that the Bill of Rights is about collective Rights, right out of the water.
> 
> Funny how that works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about States' sovereign rights, not individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A laughable assertion because if that were true the PEOPLE would already be disarmed and all legal guns would be in the hands of the government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment clearly declares what is Necessary to the security of our free States, it is most definitely not, the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Based on the fact that your fantasy world doesn't exist, my position is provably true.
Click to expand...

lol.  You have no actual argument.  Our federal Constitution is one of express powers, not implied powers.  it really is that simple, right wingers.


----------



## danielpalos

Darkwind said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> nothing but diversion?  all of those terms are collective and plural.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Collective?   You have yet to defend your reasoning behind insisting it is a collective right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is self evident.  both terms militia and the people are collective and plural as is the context regarding the security of a free State.
> 
> Only the clueless and Causeless right wing, never gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In fact, given that the entire document is set and predicated upon ensuring and safeguarding the rights and liberties of the individual, your statement fails any logic test.
> 
> The people is an artful way of saying that each individual enjoys the exact same protections under the law and that each individual's liberty is of concern to everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it isn't.  Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process in our federal Constitution.  The right wing is simply, clueless and Causeless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have already degenerated into ad hominen attacks.  Do you know why?  Because every arguement you have made has been shot down and debunked by those here, and by top scholars around the country.
> 
> You have resorted to repeating the same thing over and over and name calling.
> 
> I've finished in this thread as you are the only one making these absurd arguments and I don't get into "did too, did not" games.
Click to expand...

lol.  the right wing is worse.  why no calling them on their spam?

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process in our federal Constitution.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

there4eyeM said:


> If the Constitution had been intended to be frozen in its time of origine, the thoughtful founders would have indicated that. Instead, amendments were the very first thing they did to the renewed Federal Constitution. Means of making amendments were included. What are we to make of that?


The Framers also intended the courts to determine what the Constitution means, ultimately the Supreme Court, including the Second Amendment.


----------



## Pop23

there4eyeM said:


> If the Constitution had been intended to be frozen in its time of origine, the thoughtful founders would have indicated that. Instead, amendments were the very first thing they did to the renewed Federal Constitution. Means of making amendments were included. What are we to make of that?



And they were made extremely hard to accomplish


----------



## danielpalos

There is nothing Ambiguous about our supreme law of the land; Only right wing reading comprehension issues.


----------



## Markle

danielpalos said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> ur Founding Fathers did an most Excellent job at the convention with our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land. *Our Second Amendment says the same thing, with or without any punctuation, "on the right wing".*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who could make this up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already tried it.  The right wing is simply full of fallacy if they believe, punctuation has any influence in the meaning of the terms in our Second Amendment.
Click to expand...


You're not serious, you're simply a bored troll.


----------



## Markle

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> No idea.
> 
> You'll have to ask someone who believes in the false notion that the Second Amendment authorizes citizens to take up arms against a lawfully elected government.



Would you consider law enforcement, going door to door confiscating legally owned guns, tyranny?  If so, should the public have the right to defend themselves and their weapons?


----------



## danielpalos

Markle said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> ur Founding Fathers did an most Excellent job at the convention with our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land. *Our Second Amendment says the same thing, with or without any punctuation, "on the right wing".*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who could make this up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already tried it.  The right wing is simply full of fallacy if they believe, punctuation has any influence in the meaning of the terms in our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not serious, you're simply a bored troll.
Click to expand...

Yet, You are the one with nothing but fallacy instead of a valid argument.


----------



## peach174

danielpalos said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The militia is made up of citizen soldiers.  They maintain their own weapons, but can be called upon to defend our nation if we are attacked.
> 
> 
> 
> nothing but diversion?  all of those terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Collective?   You have yet to defend your reasoning behind insisting it is a collective right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is self evident.  both terms militia and the people are collective and plural as is the context regarding the security of a free State.
> 
> Only the clueless and Causeless right wing, never gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Collective is Socialism.
> Individual right is freedom from Government.
> That includes The Federal Government which has no right to pass any laws on any of our Amendments.
> Written history proves this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Socialism starts with a social Contract.  Our federal Constitution is that form of contract.
> 
> Nobody takes the right wing seriously; telling stories is all they seem to know how to do.
Click to expand...


Then so is the supreme court ,which says it's individual rights, not collective rights.
When governments start going down the path with collective ideology it gives the government more power and takes away individual rights.


----------



## Darkwind

danielpalos said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Collective?   You have yet to defend your reasoning behind insisting it is a collective right.
> 
> 
> 
> it is self evident.  both terms militia and the people are collective and plural as is the context regarding the security of a free State.
> 
> Only the clueless and Causeless right wing, never gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In fact, given that the entire document is set and predicated upon ensuring and safeguarding the rights and liberties of the individual, your statement fails any logic test.
> 
> The people is an artful way of saying that each individual enjoys the exact same protections under the law and that each individual's liberty is of concern to everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it isn't.  Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process in our federal Constitution.  The right wing is simply, clueless and Causeless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have already degenerated into ad hominen attacks.  Do you know why?  Because every arguement you have made has been shot down and debunked by those here, and by top scholars around the country.
> 
> You have resorted to repeating the same thing over and over and name calling.
> 
> I've finished in this thread as you are the only one making these absurd arguments and I don't get into "did too, did not" games.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  the right wing is worse.  why no calling them on their spam?
> 
> Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process in our federal Constitution.
Click to expand...

Natural Rights have no need to be recognized by any government.  That is why they are 'natural rights'.  However, the US Constitution is required to safeguard those natural rights.


----------



## danielpalos

peach174 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> nothing but diversion?  all of those terms are collective and plural.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Collective?   You have yet to defend your reasoning behind insisting it is a collective right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is self evident.  both terms militia and the people are collective and plural as is the context regarding the security of a free State.
> 
> Only the clueless and Causeless right wing, never gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Collective is Socialism.
> Individual right is freedom from Government.
> That includes The Federal Government which has no right to pass any laws on any of our Amendments.
> Written history proves this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Socialism starts with a social Contract.  Our federal Constitution is that form of contract.
> 
> Nobody takes the right wing seriously; telling stories is all they seem to know how to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then so is the supreme court ,which says it's individual rights, not collective rights.
> When governments start going down the path with collective ideology it gives the government more power and takes away individual rights.
Click to expand...

Judicial activism does what You are implying; faithful execution of the Wisdom of our Founding Fathers, does not.


----------



## danielpalos

Darkwind said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is self evident.  both terms militia and the people are collective and plural as is the context regarding the security of a free State.
> 
> Only the clueless and Causeless right wing, never gets it.
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, given that the entire document is set and predicated upon ensuring and safeguarding the rights and liberties of the individual, your statement fails any logic test.
> 
> The people is an artful way of saying that each individual enjoys the exact same protections under the law and that each individual's liberty is of concern to everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it isn't.  Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process in our federal Constitution.  The right wing is simply, clueless and Causeless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have already degenerated into ad hominen attacks.  Do you know why?  Because every arguement you have made has been shot down and debunked by those here, and by top scholars around the country.
> 
> You have resorted to repeating the same thing over and over and name calling.
> 
> I've finished in this thread as you are the only one making these absurd arguments and I don't get into "did too, did not" games.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  the right wing is worse.  why no calling them on their spam?
> 
> Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process in our federal Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Natural Rights have no need to be recognized by any government.  That is why they are 'natural rights'.  However, the US Constitution is required to safeguard those natural rights.
Click to expand...

lol.  keep your story straight, right wingers.  What happened to Dred Scott, or the lgbt community regarding keeping and bearing Arms?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, given that the entire document is set and predicated upon ensuring and safeguarding the rights and liberties of the individual, your statement fails any logic test.
> 
> The people is an artful way of saying that each individual enjoys the exact same protections under the law and that each individual's liberty is of concern to everyone.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it isn't.  Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process in our federal Constitution.  The right wing is simply, clueless and Causeless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have already degenerated into ad hominen attacks.  Do you know why?  Because every arguement you have made has been shot down and debunked by those here, and by top scholars around the country.
> 
> You have resorted to repeating the same thing over and over and name calling.
> 
> I've finished in this thread as you are the only one making these absurd arguments and I don't get into "did too, did not" games.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  the right wing is worse.  why no calling them on their spam?
> 
> Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process in our federal Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Natural Rights have no need to be recognized by any government.  That is why they are 'natural rights'.  However, the US Constitution is required to safeguard those natural rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  keep your story straight, right wingers.  What happened to Dred Scott, or the lgbt community regarding keeping and bearing Arms?
Click to expand...


Dred Scott was one of the worst decision by the SCOTUS, but was repaired by what?    Was it the state constitutions that rendered Dred Scott a moot point?   No, it was an amendment to the US Constitution.

As for LGBT rights, they can now marry in all 50 states.   Why?  Was it the state constitutions that did that?  No.  In fact, many states constitutions expressly forbid same sex marriages.  But the SCOTUS ruled that forbidding same sex marriage violated the US Constitution.  So before you try to use those against the 2nd amendment, which it does not change, remember that your claim about the power of state constitutions was slapped into oblivion by that claim.


----------



## danielpalos

The reason our Constitution is worded the way it is, is Because there is no provision for excuses in the federal doctrine.  Only republicans have nothing but repeal.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> The reason our Constitution is worded the way it is, is Because there is no provision for excuses in the federal doctrine.  Only republicans have nothing but repeal.



The way it is worded is fine.


----------



## Markle

danielpalos said:


> The reason our Constitution is worded the way it is, is Because there is no provision for excuses in the federal doctrine.  Only republicans have nothing but repeal.


----------



## peach174

danielpalos said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Collective?   You have yet to defend your reasoning behind insisting it is a collective right.
> 
> 
> 
> it is self evident.  both terms militia and the people are collective and plural as is the context regarding the security of a free State.
> 
> Only the clueless and Causeless right wing, never gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Collective is Socialism.
> Individual right is freedom from Government.
> That includes The Federal Government which has no right to pass any laws on any of our Amendments.
> Written history proves this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Socialism starts with a social Contract.  Our federal Constitution is that form of contract.
> 
> Nobody takes the right wing seriously; telling stories is all they seem to know how to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then so is the supreme court ,which says it's individual rights, not collective rights.
> When governments start going down the path with collective ideology it gives the government more power and takes away individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Judicial activism does what You are implying; faithful execution of the Wisdom of our Founding Fathers, does not.
Click to expand...



Very Funny!
It's based on our history of individualism, which was what our Founders believed.
Judicial activism is what the progressives do.


I was talking about basic political ideology, not the courts.
Collective ideology is larger government.
Individualism ideology is less government.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

danielpalos said:


> The reason our Constitution is worded the way it is, is Because there is no provision for excuses in the federal doctrine.  Only republicans have nothing but repeal.


Article VI of the US Constitution:

_This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding._

Known as the Supremacy Clause, it documents the Framers’ clear intent that Federal laws, the rulings of Federal courts, and decisions made by the Supreme Court would be the law of the land, with state constitutions and state laws subordinate to the Constitution, its case law, and Supreme Court rulings.

This is a settled, accepted fact of law – beyond dispute – reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in _Cooper v._ _Aaron_ (1958).

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, as originally intended by the Founding Generation – including the Second Amendment.


----------



## WinterBorn

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason our Constitution is worded the way it is, is Because there is no provision for excuses in the federal doctrine.  Only republicans have nothing but repeal.
> 
> 
> 
> Article VI of the US Constitution:
> 
> _This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding._
> 
> Known as the Supremacy Clause, it documents the Framers’ clear intent that Federal laws, the rulings of Federal courts, and decisions made by the Supreme Court would be the law of the land, with state constitutions and state laws subordinate to the Constitution, its case law, and Supreme Court rulings.
> 
> This is a settled, accepted fact of law – beyond dispute – reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in _Cooper v._ _Aaron_ (1958).
> 
> The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, as originally intended by the Founding Generation – including the Second Amendment.
Click to expand...


Thank you.   Maybe this will put his delusions to rest.  Of course, he will still talk about no one taking conservatives seriously and that you are making an appeal to ignorance.  But you are right.


----------



## danielpalos

peach174 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is self evident.  both terms militia and the people are collective and plural as is the context regarding the security of a free State.
> 
> Only the clueless and Causeless right wing, never gets it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Collective is Socialism.
> Individual right is freedom from Government.
> That includes The Federal Government which has no right to pass any laws on any of our Amendments.
> Written history proves this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Socialism starts with a social Contract.  Our federal Constitution is that form of contract.
> 
> Nobody takes the right wing seriously; telling stories is all they seem to know how to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then so is the supreme court ,which says it's individual rights, not collective rights.
> When governments start going down the path with collective ideology it gives the government more power and takes away individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Judicial activism does what You are implying; faithful execution of the Wisdom of our Founding Fathers, does not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Very Funny!
> It's based on our history of individualism, which was what our Founders believed.
> Judicial activism is what the progressives do.
> 
> 
> I was talking about basic political ideology, not the courts.
> Collective ideology is larger government.
> Individualism ideology is less government.
Click to expand...

so what.  how is that relevant to a discussion regarding our Second Amendment?


----------



## danielpalos

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason our Constitution is worded the way it is, is Because there is no provision for excuses in the federal doctrine.  Only republicans have nothing but repeal.
> 
> 
> 
> Article VI of the US Constitution:
> 
> _This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding._
> 
> Known as the Supremacy Clause, it documents the Framers’ clear intent that Federal laws, the rulings of Federal courts, and decisions made by the Supreme Court would be the law of the land, with state constitutions and state laws subordinate to the Constitution, its case law, and Supreme Court rulings.
> 
> This is a settled, accepted fact of law – beyond dispute – reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in _Cooper v._ _Aaron_ (1958).
> 
> The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, as originally intended by the Founding Generation – including the Second Amendment.
Click to expand...

so what.  We also have a Ninth and Tenth Amendment.


----------



## peach174

danielpalos said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Collective is Socialism.
> Individual right is freedom from Government.
> That includes The Federal Government which has no right to pass any laws on any of our Amendments.
> Written history proves this.
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism starts with a social Contract.  Our federal Constitution is that form of contract.
> 
> Nobody takes the right wing seriously; telling stories is all they seem to know how to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then so is the supreme court ,which says it's individual rights, not collective rights.
> When governments start going down the path with collective ideology it gives the government more power and takes away individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Judicial activism does what You are implying; faithful execution of the Wisdom of our Founding Fathers, does not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Very Funny!
> It's based on our history of individualism, which was what our Founders believed.
> Judicial activism is what the progressives do.
> 
> 
> I was talking about basic political ideology, not the courts.
> Collective ideology is larger government.
> Individualism ideology is less government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so what.  how is that relevant to a discussion regarding our Second Amendment?
Click to expand...


Because the Supreme Court ruled that guns, are individual rights. Like every single one of the amendments are for ,each and every single American individually.
Not collective rights.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

peach174 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism starts with a social Contract.  Our federal Constitution is that form of contract.
> 
> Nobody takes the right wing seriously; telling stories is all they seem to know how to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then so is the supreme court ,which says it's individual rights, not collective rights.
> When governments start going down the path with collective ideology it gives the government more power and takes away individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Judicial activism does what You are implying; faithful execution of the Wisdom of our Founding Fathers, does not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Very Funny!
> It's based on our history of individualism, which was what our Founders believed.
> Judicial activism is what the progressives do.
> 
> 
> I was talking about basic political ideology, not the courts.
> Collective ideology is larger government.
> Individualism ideology is less government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so what.  how is that relevant to a discussion regarding our Second Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the Supreme Court ruled that guns, are individual rights. Like every single one of the amendments are for ,each and every single American individually.
> Not collective rights.
Click to expand...


They have ruled that it's all within common sense limits.  They didn't put it that way but that is what the ruling means.  It's not absolute.


----------



## WinterBorn

Daryl Hunt said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then so is the supreme court ,which says it's individual rights, not collective rights.
> When governments start going down the path with collective ideology it gives the government more power and takes away individual rights.
> 
> 
> 
> Judicial activism does what You are implying; faithful execution of the Wisdom of our Founding Fathers, does not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Very Funny!
> It's based on our history of individualism, which was what our Founders believed.
> Judicial activism is what the progressives do.
> 
> 
> I was talking about basic political ideology, not the courts.
> Collective ideology is larger government.
> Individualism ideology is less government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so what.  how is that relevant to a discussion regarding our Second Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the Supreme Court ruled that guns, are individual rights. Like every single one of the amendments are for ,each and every single American individually.
> Not collective rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have ruled that it's all within common sense limits.  They didn't put it that way but that is what the ruling means.  It's not absolute.
Click to expand...


Indeed, the ruling did specifically say that the 2nd amendment does not mean guns cannot be regulated.  But the idea that the 2nd is a collective right is still ridiculous.


----------



## danielpalos

peach174 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism starts with a social Contract.  Our federal Constitution is that form of contract.
> 
> Nobody takes the right wing seriously; telling stories is all they seem to know how to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then so is the supreme court ,which says it's individual rights, not collective rights.
> When governments start going down the path with collective ideology it gives the government more power and takes away individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Judicial activism does what You are implying; faithful execution of the Wisdom of our Founding Fathers, does not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Very Funny!
> It's based on our history of individualism, which was what our Founders believed.
> Judicial activism is what the progressives do.
> 
> 
> I was talking about basic political ideology, not the courts.
> Collective ideology is larger government.
> Individualism ideology is less government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so what.  how is that relevant to a discussion regarding our Second Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the Supreme Court ruled that guns, are individual rights. Like every single one of the amendments are for ,each and every single American individually.
> Not collective rights.
Click to expand...

Not true.  We have our Second and Tenth Amendments.  The federalist position is that, States' rights, are included.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then so is the supreme court ,which says it's individual rights, not collective rights.
> When governments start going down the path with collective ideology it gives the government more power and takes away individual rights.
> 
> 
> 
> Judicial activism does what You are implying; faithful execution of the Wisdom of our Founding Fathers, does not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Very Funny!
> It's based on our history of individualism, which was what our Founders believed.
> Judicial activism is what the progressives do.
> 
> 
> I was talking about basic political ideology, not the courts.
> Collective ideology is larger government.
> Individualism ideology is less government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so what.  how is that relevant to a discussion regarding our Second Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the Supreme Court ruled that guns, are individual rights. Like every single one of the amendments are for ,each and every single American individually.
> Not collective rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not true.  We have our Second and Tenth Amendments.  The federalist position is that, States' rights, are included.
Click to expand...


The 10th amendment does not effect the 2nd amendment.  The 2nd amendment is an individual right.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Judicial activism does what You are implying; faithful execution of the Wisdom of our Founding Fathers, does not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very Funny!
> It's based on our history of individualism, which was what our Founders believed.
> Judicial activism is what the progressives do.
> 
> 
> I was talking about basic political ideology, not the courts.
> Collective ideology is larger government.
> Individualism ideology is less government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so what.  how is that relevant to a discussion regarding our Second Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the Supreme Court ruled that guns, are individual rights. Like every single one of the amendments are for ,each and every single American individually.
> Not collective rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not true.  We have our Second and Tenth Amendments.  The federalist position is that, States' rights, are included.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 10th amendment does not effect the 2nd amendment.  The 2nd amendment is an individual right.
Click to expand...

Only judicial activism claims our Second Article of Amendment, is an Individual right.  The federalist position is, it is an expressly declared, civil right.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very Funny!
> It's based on our history of individualism, which was what our Founders believed.
> Judicial activism is what the progressives do.
> 
> 
> I was talking about basic political ideology, not the courts.
> Collective ideology is larger government.
> Individualism ideology is less government.
> 
> 
> 
> so what.  how is that relevant to a discussion regarding our Second Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the Supreme Court ruled that guns, are individual rights. Like every single one of the amendments are for ,each and every single American individually.
> Not collective rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not true.  We have our Second and Tenth Amendments.  The federalist position is that, States' rights, are included.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 10th amendment does not effect the 2nd amendment.  The 2nd amendment is an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only judicial activism claims our Second Article of Amendment, is an Individual right.  The federalist position is, it is an expressly declared, civil right.
Click to expand...


No, the Bill of Rights was specifically written to guarantee individual rights.  It was not to guarantee rights to states or groups.


----------



## MaryL

The second amendment was written before machine guns and  well before the industrial revolution. How  stupid do you think our forefathers where?


----------



## WinterBorn

MaryL said:


> The second amendment was written before machine guns and  well before the industrial revolution. How  stupid do you think our forefathers where?



When the 2nd amendment was written, the citizen soldier had the same weapons that the best armed infantry in the world carried.


----------



## MaryL

WinterBorn said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The second amendment was written before machine guns and  well before the industrial revolution. How  stupid do you think our forefathers where?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When the 2nd amendment was written, the citizen soldier had the same weapons that the best armed infantry in the world carried.
Click to expand...

The second amendment was written before the industrial revolution or machine guns. Before mass shootings, in an age of our better mercy.  Did Thomas Jefferson envision kids shooting each other in schools?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> so what.  how is that relevant to a discussion regarding our Second Amendment?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the Supreme Court ruled that guns, are individual rights. Like every single one of the amendments are for ,each and every single American individually.
> Not collective rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not true.  We have our Second and Tenth Amendments.  The federalist position is that, States' rights, are included.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 10th amendment does not effect the 2nd amendment.  The 2nd amendment is an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only judicial activism claims our Second Article of Amendment, is an Individual right.  The federalist position is, it is an expressly declared, civil right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the Bill of Rights was specifically written to guarantee individual rights.  It was not to guarantee rights to states or groups.
Click to expand...

Where does it say that in our Constitution?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because the Supreme Court ruled that guns, are individual rights. Like every single one of the amendments are for ,each and every single American individually.
> Not collective rights.
> 
> 
> 
> Not true.  We have our Second and Tenth Amendments.  The federalist position is that, States' rights, are included.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 10th amendment does not effect the 2nd amendment.  The 2nd amendment is an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only judicial activism claims our Second Article of Amendment, is an Individual right.  The federalist position is, it is an expressly declared, civil right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the Bill of Rights was specifically written to guarantee individual rights.  It was not to guarantee rights to states or groups.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where does it say that in our Constitution?
Click to expand...


It says that in the writings of the men who wrote the amendments that make up the Bill of Rights.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not true.  We have our Second and Tenth Amendments.  The federalist position is that, States' rights, are included.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 10th amendment does not effect the 2nd amendment.  The 2nd amendment is an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only judicial activism claims our Second Article of Amendment, is an Individual right.  The federalist position is, it is an expressly declared, civil right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the Bill of Rights was specifically written to guarantee individual rights.  It was not to guarantee rights to states or groups.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where does it say that in our Constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It says that in the writings of the men who wrote the amendments that make up the Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...

Our federal Constitution is express, not implied.  Text is key.


----------



## Flopper

MaryL said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The second amendment was written before machine guns and  well before the industrial revolution. How  stupid do you think our forefathers where?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When the 2nd amendment was written, the citizen soldier had the same weapons that the best armed infantry in the world carried.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The second amendment was written before the industrial revolution or machine guns. Before mass shootings, in an age of our better mercy.  Did Thomas Jefferson envision kids shooting each other in schools?
Click to expand...

*If you're saying the US Constitution was a product of the times, you're absolutely correct.  Whether we like it not, a constitution is either a living or dead document.  

People treat the Constitution as if it’s some all-knowing mystical force, beamed to us from outer space by some omniscient entity.  Is it reasonable to think that when the founders wrote the Constitution, they had  foresight into gay marriage and iPods and 9/11 and self driving cars and lunatics shooting people in shopping malls and schools?  What would Benjamin Franklin have to say about the absurdity that Alaska, with less than a million inhabitants, has the same Senate power as California, a state with over 38 million people?  The most of the basic ideas the founders had were good, they just need to be re-framed in the context of 21st century.*


----------



## danielpalos

Pop23 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militia are expressly declared Necessary to the security of a free State, not the federal government or the People.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The stupidity here is unbelievable.
> 
> What is the militia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, and only the right wing appeals to ignorance of the law, and plain reason, not to mention, legal axioms.
> 
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> *— George Mason*_, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788_
> Only well regulated militia of the whole People, a few public officials excepted, are declared Necessary, the unorganized militia is not declared Necessary and may be Infringed by well regulated militia, when Necessary for the security of a free State.
> 
> Our supreme law of the land is about the resolution of any conflict of laws, not the whole and entire concept of natural or individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then the 2nd would have ended at the second comma, since it didn’t, it is expressing a right granted beyond the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the punctuation changes nothing.  you can remove all of it, and it means the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The punctuation means everything. It’s why the 2nd is in The Bill of Rights. Using your logic, the article would not be within the 1st 10 articles at all.
> 
> The 1st 10 outline individual rights, and the 2nd would be so out of place as to be laughable.
> 
> It would be like adding The History of the Ford Mustang within the Old Testament.
> 
> A really bad placement.
> 
> The founding fathers were not dumb.
Click to expand...

that is Your story bro; the punctuation changes No Thing about Second Article of Amendment.  Text is Every Thing.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> The stupidity here is unbelievable.
> 
> What is the militia?
> 
> 
> 
> yes, and only the right wing appeals to ignorance of the law, and plain reason, not to mention, legal axioms.
> 
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> *— George Mason*_, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788_
> Only well regulated militia of the whole People, a few public officials excepted, are declared Necessary, the unorganized militia is not declared Necessary and may be Infringed by well regulated militia, when Necessary for the security of a free State.
> 
> Our supreme law of the land is about the resolution of any conflict of laws, not the whole and entire concept of natural or individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then the 2nd would have ended at the second comma, since it didn’t, it is expressing a right granted beyond the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the punctuation changes nothing.  you can remove all of it, and it means the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The punctuation means everything. It’s why the 2nd is in The Bill of Rights. Using your logic, the article would not be within the 1st 10 articles at all.
> 
> The 1st 10 outline individual rights, and the 2nd would be so out of place as to be laughable.
> 
> It would be like adding The History of the Ford Mustang within the Old Testament.
> 
> A really bad placement.
> 
> The founding fathers were not dumb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is Your story bro; the punctuation changes No Thing about Second Article of Amendment.  Text is Every Thing.
Click to expand...


Punctuation means everything.

"Hey, let's eat, Dad!"       "Hey, let's eat Dad!"
Are you claiming those two sentences mean the same thing?

And calling something a collective right while refusing to explain why speaks volumes where your argument is concerned.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes, and only the right wing appeals to ignorance of the law, and plain reason, not to mention, legal axioms.
> 
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> *— George Mason*_, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788_
> Only well regulated militia of the whole People, a few public officials excepted, are declared Necessary, the unorganized militia is not declared Necessary and may be Infringed by well regulated militia, when Necessary for the security of a free State.
> 
> Our supreme law of the land is about the resolution of any conflict of laws, not the whole and entire concept of natural or individual rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then the 2nd would have ended at the second comma, since it didn’t, it is expressing a right granted beyond the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the punctuation changes nothing.  you can remove all of it, and it means the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The punctuation means everything. It’s why the 2nd is in The Bill of Rights. Using your logic, the article would not be within the 1st 10 articles at all.
> 
> The 1st 10 outline individual rights, and the 2nd would be so out of place as to be laughable.
> 
> It would be like adding The History of the Ford Mustang within the Old Testament.
> 
> A really bad placement.
> 
> The founding fathers were not dumb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is Your story bro; the punctuation changes No Thing about Second Article of Amendment.  Text is Every Thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Punctuation means everything.
> 
> "Hey, let's eat, Dad!"       "Hey, let's eat Dad!"
> Are you claiming those two sentences mean the same thing?
> 
> And calling something a collective right while refusing to explain why speaks volumes where your argument is concerned.
Click to expand...

special pleading much?  now, try it with our Second Amendment.  story telling, right wingers.


----------



## Flopper

danielpalos said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> The stupidity here is unbelievable.
> 
> What is the militia?
> 
> 
> 
> yes, and only the right wing appeals to ignorance of the law, and plain reason, not to mention, legal axioms.
> 
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> *— George Mason*_, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788_
> Only well regulated militia of the whole People, a few public officials excepted, are declared Necessary, the unorganized militia is not declared Necessary and may be Infringed by well regulated militia, when Necessary for the security of a free State.
> 
> Our supreme law of the land is about the resolution of any conflict of laws, not the whole and entire concept of natural or individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then the 2nd would have ended at the second comma, since it didn’t, it is expressing a right granted beyond the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the punctuation changes nothing.  you can remove all of it, and it means the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The punctuation means everything. It’s why the 2nd is in The Bill of Rights. Using your logic, the article would not be within the 1st 10 articles at all.
> 
> The 1st 10 outline individual rights, and the 2nd would be so out of place as to be laughable.
> 
> It would be like adding The History of the Ford Mustang within the Old Testament.
> 
> A really bad placement.
> 
> The founding fathers were not dumb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is Your story bro; the punctuation changes No Thing about Second Article of Amendment.  Text is Every Thing.
Click to expand...

*Punctuation is important in any legal document because it changes the meaning in one way or another.

The courts have ruled that in the 2nd amendment the second comma divides the amendment into two clauses: one 'prefatory' and the other 'operative.' The bit about a well-regulated militia is just preliminary throat clearing; the framers don't really get down to business until they start talking about 'the right of the people ... shall not be infringed,..

However, it is has also been successfully argued in court that the use of commas was far less restrictive in 18th century; that is writers liberally used commas between most all clauses thus the primary two clauses were a conditions for the operative clause, "shall not be infringed...".

One can argue this point either way but the fact is the 2nd amendment was a compromise between states who favored a strong standing army and states who simple wanted local militias. So just as today, the two sides could read the amendment as favoring their belief.

Today 60% of gun owners state that protection is the reason they purchased a gun.  38% said it was hunting.  Those were certainly not the reasons the founders put the 2nd amendment in the Constitution.  Guns in those days were muskets without a rear sight that were certainly not very useful for hunting or protection.  There only really practical use was in being fired in volleys as in militias.

Unlike today, the approval of the 2nd amendment was not a news worthy event because most people had little interest in owning guns.  Only 1 in every 5 households owned a musket and few people had any interest in buying one since the cost was 2 weeks to a months pay.  Most muskets were passed down from father to son and were not well maintained.  In fact, a survey at the time done by a North Carolina militia found that over half were inoperable.   They also had no rear sights making them very inaccurate and loading time for most people was 30 seconds to a minute. Thus, a good knife or axe was much better self protection at a fraction of the cost of a musket.*


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then the 2nd would have ended at the second comma, since it didn’t, it is expressing a right granted beyond the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> the punctuation changes nothing.  you can remove all of it, and it means the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The punctuation means everything. It’s why the 2nd is in The Bill of Rights. Using your logic, the article would not be within the 1st 10 articles at all.
> 
> The 1st 10 outline individual rights, and the 2nd would be so out of place as to be laughable.
> 
> It would be like adding The History of the Ford Mustang within the Old Testament.
> 
> A really bad placement.
> 
> The founding fathers were not dumb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is Your story bro; the punctuation changes No Thing about Second Article of Amendment.  Text is Every Thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Punctuation means everything.
> 
> "Hey, let's eat, Dad!"       "Hey, let's eat Dad!"
> Are you claiming those two sentences mean the same thing?
> 
> And calling something a collective right while refusing to explain why speaks volumes where your argument is concerned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> special pleading much?  now, try it with our Second Amendment.  story telling, right wingers.
Click to expand...


Just calling something a logical fallacy does not make it one.  My example on punctuation is accurate.   And you never have explained your reasoning for insisting the 2nd is a collective right.   Which is not surprising, since every constitutional scholar has argued it is an individual right.  Even the ones that don't like it agree that it is an individual right.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

Flopper said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes, and only the right wing appeals to ignorance of the law, and plain reason, not to mention, legal axioms.
> 
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> *— George Mason*_, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788_
> Only well regulated militia of the whole People, a few public officials excepted, are declared Necessary, the unorganized militia is not declared Necessary and may be Infringed by well regulated militia, when Necessary for the security of a free State.
> 
> Our supreme law of the land is about the resolution of any conflict of laws, not the whole and entire concept of natural or individual rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then the 2nd would have ended at the second comma, since it didn’t, it is expressing a right granted beyond the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the punctuation changes nothing.  you can remove all of it, and it means the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The punctuation means everything. It’s why the 2nd is in The Bill of Rights. Using your logic, the article would not be within the 1st 10 articles at all.
> 
> The 1st 10 outline individual rights, and the 2nd would be so out of place as to be laughable.
> 
> It would be like adding The History of the Ford Mustang within the Old Testament.
> 
> A really bad placement.
> 
> The founding fathers were not dumb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is Your story bro; the punctuation changes No Thing about Second Article of Amendment.  Text is Every Thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Punctuation is important in any legal document because it changes the meaning in one way or another.
> 
> The courts have ruled that in the 2nd amendment the second comma divides the amendment into two clauses: one 'prefatory' and the other 'operative.' The bit about a well-regulated militia is just preliminary throat clearing; the framers don't really get down to business until they start talking about 'the right of the people ... shall not be infringed,..
> 
> However, it is has also been successfully argued in court that the use of commas was far less restrictive in 18th century; that is writers liberally used commas between most all clauses thus the primary two clauses were a conditions for the operative clause, "shall not be infringed...".
> 
> One can argue this point either way but the fact is the 2nd amendment was a compromise between states who favored a strong standing army and states who simple wanted local militias. So just as today, the two sides could read the amendment as favoring their belief.
> 
> Today 60% of gun owners state that protection is the reason they purchased a gun.  38% said it was hunting.  Those were certainly not the reasons the founders put the 2nd amendment in the Constitution.  Guns in those days were muskets without a rear sight that were certainly not very useful for hunting or protection.  There only really practical use was in being fired in volleys as in militias.
> 
> Unlike today, the approval of the 2nd amendment was not a news worthy event because most people had little interest in owning guns.  Only 1 in every 5 households owned a musket and few people had any interest in buying one since the cost was 2 weeks to a months pay.  They had no rear sights making them very inaccurate and loading time for most people was 30 seconds to a minute. Thus, a good knife or axe was much better self protection at a fraction of the cost of a musket.*
Click to expand...


*"Unlike today, the approval of the 2nd amendment was not a news worthy event because most people had little interest in owning guns. Only 1 in every 5 households owned a musket and few people had any interest in buying one since the cost was 2 weeks to a months pay."
*
Source?


----------



## danielpalos

Flopper said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes, and only the right wing appeals to ignorance of the law, and plain reason, not to mention, legal axioms.
> 
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> *— George Mason*_, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788_
> Only well regulated militia of the whole People, a few public officials excepted, are declared Necessary, the unorganized militia is not declared Necessary and may be Infringed by well regulated militia, when Necessary for the security of a free State.
> 
> Our supreme law of the land is about the resolution of any conflict of laws, not the whole and entire concept of natural or individual rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then the 2nd would have ended at the second comma, since it didn’t, it is expressing a right granted beyond the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the punctuation changes nothing.  you can remove all of it, and it means the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The punctuation means everything. It’s why the 2nd is in The Bill of Rights. Using your logic, the article would not be within the 1st 10 articles at all.
> 
> The 1st 10 outline individual rights, and the 2nd would be so out of place as to be laughable.
> 
> It would be like adding The History of the Ford Mustang within the Old Testament.
> 
> A really bad placement.
> 
> The founding fathers were not dumb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is Your story bro; the punctuation changes No Thing about Second Article of Amendment.  Text is Every Thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Punctuation is important in any legal document because it changes the meaning in one way or another.
> 
> The courts have ruled that in the 2nd amendment the second comma divides the amendment into two clauses: one 'prefatory' and the other 'operative.' The bit about a well-regulated militia is just preliminary throat clearing; the framers don't really get down to business until they start talking about 'the right of the people ... shall not be infringed,..
> 
> However, it is has also been successfully argued in court that the use of commas was far less restrictive in 18th century; that is writers liberally used commas between most all clauses thus the primary two clauses were a conditions for the operative clause, "shall not be infringed...".
> 
> One can argue this point either way but the fact is the 2nd amendment was a compromise between states who favored a strong standing army and states who simple wanted local militias. So just as today, the two sides could read the amendment as favoring their belief.
> 
> Today 60% of gun owners state that protection is the reason they purchased a gun.  38% said it was hunting.  Those were certainly not the reasons the founders put the 2nd amendment in the Constitution.  Guns in those days were muskets without a rear sight that were certainly not very useful for hunting or protection.  There only really practical use was in being fired in volleys as in militias.
> 
> Unlike today, the approval of the 2nd amendment was not a news worthy event because most people had little interest in owning guns.  Only 1 in every 5 households owned a musket and few people had any interest in buying one since the cost was 2 weeks to a months pay.  They had no rear sights making them very inaccurate and loading time for most people was 30 seconds to a minute. Thus, a good knife or axe was much better self protection at a fraction of the cost of a musket.*
Click to expand...

Judicial activism?  



> Punctuation is important in any legal document because it changes the meaning in one way or another.



Not in the Case of our Second Article of Amendment.  It means the Same Thing, regardless.

Only judicial forms of activism appeals to ignorance of the term, militia.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> the punctuation changes nothing.  you can remove all of it, and it means the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The punctuation means everything. It’s why the 2nd is in The Bill of Rights. Using your logic, the article would not be within the 1st 10 articles at all.
> 
> The 1st 10 outline individual rights, and the 2nd would be so out of place as to be laughable.
> 
> It would be like adding The History of the Ford Mustang within the Old Testament.
> 
> A really bad placement.
> 
> The founding fathers were not dumb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is Your story bro; the punctuation changes No Thing about Second Article of Amendment.  Text is Every Thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Punctuation means everything.
> 
> "Hey, let's eat, Dad!"       "Hey, let's eat Dad!"
> Are you claiming those two sentences mean the same thing?
> 
> And calling something a collective right while refusing to explain why speaks volumes where your argument is concerned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> special pleading much?  now, try it with our Second Amendment.  story telling, right wingers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just calling something a logical fallacy does not make it one.  My example on punctuation is accurate.   And you never have explained your reasoning for insisting the 2nd is a collective right.   Which is not surprising, since every constitutional scholar has argued it is an individual right.  Even the ones that don't like it agree that it is an individual right.
Click to expand...

just another story, right wingers.  all political talk and no political action.

put it in writing, right wingers, like the left is willing to do.


----------



## MaryL

Billy_Kinetta said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then the 2nd would have ended at the second comma, since it didn’t, it is expressing a right granted beyond the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> the punctuation changes nothing.  you can remove all of it, and it means the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The punctuation means everything. It’s why the 2nd is in The Bill of Rights. Using your logic, the article would not be within the 1st 10 articles at all.
> 
> The 1st 10 outline individual rights, and the 2nd would be so out of place as to be laughable.
> 
> It would be like adding The History of the Ford Mustang within the Old Testament.
> 
> A really bad placement.
> 
> The founding fathers were not dumb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is Your story bro; the punctuation changes No Thing about Second Article of Amendment.  Text is Every Thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Punctuation is important in any legal document because it changes the meaning in one way or another.
> 
> The courts have ruled that in the 2nd amendment the second comma divides the amendment into two clauses: one 'prefatory' and the other 'operative.' The bit about a well-regulated militia is just preliminary throat clearing; the framers don't really get down to business until they start talking about 'the right of the people ... shall not be infringed,..
> 
> However, it is has also been successfully argued in court that the use of commas was far less restrictive in 18th century; that is writers liberally used commas between most all clauses thus the primary two clauses were a conditions for the operative clause, "shall not be infringed...".
> 
> One can argue this point either way but the fact is the 2nd amendment was a compromise between states who favored a strong standing army and states who simple wanted local militias. So just as today, the two sides could read the amendment as favoring their belief.
> 
> Today 60% of gun owners state that protection is the reason they purchased a gun.  38% said it was hunting.  Those were certainly not the reasons the founders put the 2nd amendment in the Constitution.  Guns in those days were muskets without a rear sight that were certainly not very useful for hunting or protection.  There only really practical use was in being fired in volleys as in militias.
> 
> Unlike today, the approval of the 2nd amendment was not a news worthy event because most people had little interest in owning guns.  Only 1 in every 5 households owned a musket and few people had any interest in buying one since the cost was 2 weeks to a months pay.  They had no rear sights making them very inaccurate and loading time for most people was 30 seconds to a minute. Thus, a good knife or axe was much better self protection at a fraction of the cost of a musket.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"Unlike today, the approval of the 2nd amendment was not a news worthy event because most people had little interest in owning guns. Only 1 in every 5 households owned a musket and few people had any interest in buying one since the cost was 2 weeks to a months pay."
> *
> Source?
Click to expand...


Coincidentally, there were no mass school shootings in the 1700's, No assault rifles, either.  Thus proving what an anachronism the 2nd amendment  has become.


----------



## jon_berzerk

MaryL said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> the punctuation changes nothing.  you can remove all of it, and it means the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The punctuation means everything. It’s why the 2nd is in The Bill of Rights. Using your logic, the article would not be within the 1st 10 articles at all.
> 
> The 1st 10 outline individual rights, and the 2nd would be so out of place as to be laughable.
> 
> It would be like adding The History of the Ford Mustang within the Old Testament.
> 
> A really bad placement.
> 
> The founding fathers were not dumb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is Your story bro; the punctuation changes No Thing about Second Article of Amendment.  Text is Every Thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Punctuation is important in any legal document because it changes the meaning in one way or another.
> 
> The courts have ruled that in the 2nd amendment the second comma divides the amendment into two clauses: one 'prefatory' and the other 'operative.' The bit about a well-regulated militia is just preliminary throat clearing; the framers don't really get down to business until they start talking about 'the right of the people ... shall not be infringed,..
> 
> However, it is has also been successfully argued in court that the use of commas was far less restrictive in 18th century; that is writers liberally used commas between most all clauses thus the primary two clauses were a conditions for the operative clause, "shall not be infringed...".
> 
> One can argue this point either way but the fact is the 2nd amendment was a compromise between states who favored a strong standing army and states who simple wanted local militias. So just as today, the two sides could read the amendment as favoring their belief.
> 
> Today 60% of gun owners state that protection is the reason they purchased a gun.  38% said it was hunting.  Those were certainly not the reasons the founders put the 2nd amendment in the Constitution.  Guns in those days were muskets without a rear sight that were certainly not very useful for hunting or protection.  There only really practical use was in being fired in volleys as in militias.
> 
> Unlike today, the approval of the 2nd amendment was not a news worthy event because most people had little interest in owning guns.  Only 1 in every 5 households owned a musket and few people had any interest in buying one since the cost was 2 weeks to a months pay.  They had no rear sights making them very inaccurate and loading time for most people was 30 seconds to a minute. Thus, a good knife or axe was much better self protection at a fraction of the cost of a musket.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"Unlike today, the approval of the 2nd amendment was not a news worthy event because most people had little interest in owning guns. Only 1 in every 5 households owned a musket and few people had any interest in buying one since the cost was 2 weeks to a months pay."
> *
> Source?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Coincidentally, there were no mass school shootings in the 1700's, No assault rifles, either.  Thus proving what an anachronism the 2nd amendment  has become.
Click to expand...



i post this to simply demonstrate your stupidity once again 

--LOL 

*1700s*
The earliest known United States shooting to happen on school property was the Pontiac's Rebellion school massacre on July 26, 1764, where four Lenape American Indian entered the schoolhouse near present-day Greencastle, Pennsylvania, shot and killed schoolmaster Enoch Brown, and killed nine or ten children (reports vary). Only two children survived.


----------



## Flopper

Billy_Kinetta said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then the 2nd would have ended at the second comma, since it didn’t, it is expressing a right granted beyond the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> the punctuation changes nothing.  you can remove all of it, and it means the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The punctuation means everything. It’s why the 2nd is in The Bill of Rights. Using your logic, the article would not be within the 1st 10 articles at all.
> 
> The 1st 10 outline individual rights, and the 2nd would be so out of place as to be laughable.
> 
> It would be like adding The History of the Ford Mustang within the Old Testament.
> 
> A really bad placement.
> 
> The founding fathers were not dumb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is Your story bro; the punctuation changes No Thing about Second Article of Amendment.  Text is Every Thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Punctuation is important in any legal document because it changes the meaning in one way or another.
> 
> The courts have ruled that in the 2nd amendment the second comma divides the amendment into two clauses: one 'prefatory' and the other 'operative.' The bit about a well-regulated militia is just preliminary throat clearing; the framers don't really get down to business until they start talking about 'the right of the people ... shall not be infringed,..
> 
> However, it is has also been successfully argued in court that the use of commas was far less restrictive in 18th century; that is writers liberally used commas between most all clauses thus the primary two clauses were a conditions for the operative clause, "shall not be infringed...".
> 
> One can argue this point either way but the fact is the 2nd amendment was a compromise between states who favored a strong standing army and states who simple wanted local militias. So just as today, the two sides could read the amendment as favoring their belief.
> 
> Today 60% of gun owners state that protection is the reason they purchased a gun.  38% said it was hunting.  Those were certainly not the reasons the founders put the 2nd amendment in the Constitution.  Guns in those days were muskets without a rear sight that were certainly not very useful for hunting or protection.  There only really practical use was in being fired in volleys as in militias.
> 
> Unlike today, the approval of the 2nd amendment was not a news worthy event because most people had little interest in owning guns.  Only 1 in every 5 households owned a musket and few people had any interest in buying one since the cost was 2 weeks to a months pay.  They had no rear sights making them very inaccurate and loading time for most people was 30 seconds to a minute. Thus, a good knife or axe was much better self protection at a fraction of the cost of a musket.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"Unlike today, the approval of the 2nd amendment was not a news worthy event because most people had little interest in owning guns. Only 1 in every 5 households owned a musket and few people had any interest in buying one since the cost was 2 weeks to a months pay."
> *
> Source?
Click to expand...

*To best of my recollection, it's all here. 
ARMING AMERICA
The Origins of a National Gun Culture.
By Michael A. Bellesiles.*


----------



## Flopper

MaryL said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> the punctuation changes nothing.  you can remove all of it, and it means the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The punctuation means everything. It’s why the 2nd is in The Bill of Rights. Using your logic, the article would not be within the 1st 10 articles at all.
> 
> The 1st 10 outline individual rights, and the 2nd would be so out of place as to be laughable.
> 
> It would be like adding The History of the Ford Mustang within the Old Testament.
> 
> A really bad placement.
> 
> The founding fathers were not dumb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is Your story bro; the punctuation changes No Thing about Second Article of Amendment.  Text is Every Thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Punctuation is important in any legal document because it changes the meaning in one way or another.
> 
> The courts have ruled that in the 2nd amendment the second comma divides the amendment into two clauses: one 'prefatory' and the other 'operative.' The bit about a well-regulated militia is just preliminary throat clearing; the framers don't really get down to business until they start talking about 'the right of the people ... shall not be infringed,..
> 
> However, it is has also been successfully argued in court that the use of commas was far less restrictive in 18th century; that is writers liberally used commas between most all clauses thus the primary two clauses were a conditions for the operative clause, "shall not be infringed...".
> 
> One can argue this point either way but the fact is the 2nd amendment was a compromise between states who favored a strong standing army and states who simple wanted local militias. So just as today, the two sides could read the amendment as favoring their belief.
> 
> Today 60% of gun owners state that protection is the reason they purchased a gun.  38% said it was hunting.  Those were certainly not the reasons the founders put the 2nd amendment in the Constitution.  Guns in those days were muskets without a rear sight that were certainly not very useful for hunting or protection.  There only really practical use was in being fired in volleys as in militias.
> 
> Unlike today, the approval of the 2nd amendment was not a news worthy event because most people had little interest in owning guns.  Only 1 in every 5 households owned a musket and few people had any interest in buying one since the cost was 2 weeks to a months pay.  They had no rear sights making them very inaccurate and loading time for most people was 30 seconds to a minute. Thus, a good knife or axe was much better self protection at a fraction of the cost of a musket.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"Unlike today, the approval of the 2nd amendment was not a news worthy event because most people had little interest in owning guns. Only 1 in every 5 households owned a musket and few people had any interest in buying one since the cost was 2 weeks to a months pay."
> *
> Source?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Coincidentally, there were no mass school shootings in the 1700's, No assault rifles, either.  Thus proving what an anachronism the 2nd amendment  has become.
Click to expand...

*Most murders were committed with knives, and -- contrary to the myth of primitive violence -- there were few murders outside Indian warfare (in North Carolina, on the average, there was only one murder every two years between 1663 and 1740).

There was only one recorded murder using a gun.

Spiking the Gun Myth*


----------



## MaryL

Flopper said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The punctuation means everything. It’s why the 2nd is in The Bill of Rights. Using your logic, the article would not be within the 1st 10 articles at all.
> 
> The 1st 10 outline individual rights, and the 2nd would be so out of place as to be laughable.
> 
> It would be like adding The History of the Ford Mustang within the Old Testament.
> 
> A really bad placement.
> 
> The founding fathers were not dumb.
> 
> 
> 
> that is Your story bro; the punctuation changes No Thing about Second Article of Amendment.  Text is Every Thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Punctuation is important in any legal document because it changes the meaning in one way or another.
> 
> The courts have ruled that in the 2nd amendment the second comma divides the amendment into two clauses: one 'prefatory' and the other 'operative.' The bit about a well-regulated militia is just preliminary throat clearing; the framers don't really get down to business until they start talking about 'the right of the people ... shall not be infringed,..
> 
> However, it is has also been successfully argued in court that the use of commas was far less restrictive in 18th century; that is writers liberally used commas between most all clauses thus the primary two clauses were a conditions for the operative clause, "shall not be infringed...".
> 
> One can argue this point either way but the fact is the 2nd amendment was a compromise between states who favored a strong standing army and states who simple wanted local militias. So just as today, the two sides could read the amendment as favoring their belief.
> 
> Today 60% of gun owners state that protection is the reason they purchased a gun.  38% said it was hunting.  Those were certainly not the reasons the founders put the 2nd amendment in the Constitution.  Guns in those days were muskets without a rear sight that were certainly not very useful for hunting or protection.  There only really practical use was in being fired in volleys as in militias.
> 
> Unlike today, the approval of the 2nd amendment was not a news worthy event because most people had little interest in owning guns.  Only 1 in every 5 households owned a musket and few people had any interest in buying one since the cost was 2 weeks to a months pay.  They had no rear sights making them very inaccurate and loading time for most people was 30 seconds to a minute. Thus, a good knife or axe was much better self protection at a fraction of the cost of a musket.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"Unlike today, the approval of the 2nd amendment was not a news worthy event because most people had little interest in owning guns. Only 1 in every 5 households owned a musket and few people had any interest in buying one since the cost was 2 weeks to a months pay."
> *
> Source?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Coincidentally, there were no mass school shootings in the 1700's, No assault rifles, either.  Thus proving what an anachronism the 2nd amendment  has become.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Most murders were committed with knives, and -- contrary to the myth of primitive violence -- there were few murders outside Indian warfare (in North Carolina, on the average, there was only one murder every two years between 1663 and 1740).
> 
> There was only one recorded murder using a gun.
> 
> Spiking the Gun Myth*
Click to expand...



Most murders are committed by murders, it goes without saying. Knives I use evey day. cooking food, mostly. Knives are variable tools. What the hell do you do with guns? There within lies the question. You kill or train to kill. That's pretty much it. Who needs THAT?


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

Flopper said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> the punctuation changes nothing.  you can remove all of it, and it means the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The punctuation means everything. It’s why the 2nd is in The Bill of Rights. Using your logic, the article would not be within the 1st 10 articles at all.
> 
> The 1st 10 outline individual rights, and the 2nd would be so out of place as to be laughable.
> 
> It would be like adding The History of the Ford Mustang within the Old Testament.
> 
> A really bad placement.
> 
> The founding fathers were not dumb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is Your story bro; the punctuation changes No Thing about Second Article of Amendment.  Text is Every Thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Punctuation is important in any legal document because it changes the meaning in one way or another.
> 
> The courts have ruled that in the 2nd amendment the second comma divides the amendment into two clauses: one 'prefatory' and the other 'operative.' The bit about a well-regulated militia is just preliminary throat clearing; the framers don't really get down to business until they start talking about 'the right of the people ... shall not be infringed,..
> 
> However, it is has also been successfully argued in court that the use of commas was far less restrictive in 18th century; that is writers liberally used commas between most all clauses thus the primary two clauses were a conditions for the operative clause, "shall not be infringed...".
> 
> One can argue this point either way but the fact is the 2nd amendment was a compromise between states who favored a strong standing army and states who simple wanted local militias. So just as today, the two sides could read the amendment as favoring their belief.
> 
> Today 60% of gun owners state that protection is the reason they purchased a gun.  38% said it was hunting.  Those were certainly not the reasons the founders put the 2nd amendment in the Constitution.  Guns in those days were muskets without a rear sight that were certainly not very useful for hunting or protection.  There only really practical use was in being fired in volleys as in militias.
> 
> Unlike today, the approval of the 2nd amendment was not a news worthy event because most people had little interest in owning guns.  Only 1 in every 5 households owned a musket and few people had any interest in buying one since the cost was 2 weeks to a months pay.  They had no rear sights making them very inaccurate and loading time for most people was 30 seconds to a minute. Thus, a good knife or axe was much better self protection at a fraction of the cost of a musket.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"Unlike today, the approval of the 2nd amendment was not a news worthy event because most people had little interest in owning guns. Only 1 in every 5 households owned a musket and few people had any interest in buying one since the cost was 2 weeks to a months pay."
> *
> Source?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *To best of my recollection, it's all here.
> ARMING AMERICA
> The Origins of a National Gun Culture.
> By Michael A. Bellesiles.*
Click to expand...


I suspected that was your source.

*"Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture is a discredited 2000 book by historian Michael A. Bellesiles about American gun culture, an expansion of a 1996 article he published in the Journal of American History. Bellesiles, then a professor at Emory University, used fabricated research to argue that during the early period of US history, guns were uncommon during peacetime and that a culture of gun ownership did not arise until the mid-nineteenth century.

"Although the book was initially awarded the prestigious Bancroft Prize, it later became the first work for which the prize was rescinded following a decision of Columbia University's Board of Trustees that Bellesiles had "violated basic norms of scholarship and the high standards expected of Bancroft Prize winners."*

Arming America - Wikipedia


----------



## MaryL

I open a letter with a knife and  also, say dice and slice dinner. I never shot open a letter, or used a gun to prepare my food. Didn't shoot off a lid on a can of salsa. A good chef is only as good as his knives, But guns?   Guns are about killing. Who is kidding who here?


----------



## Flopper

MaryL said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> that is Your story bro; the punctuation changes No Thing about Second Article of Amendment.  Text is Every Thing.
> 
> 
> 
> *Punctuation is important in any legal document because it changes the meaning in one way or another.
> 
> The courts have ruled that in the 2nd amendment the second comma divides the amendment into two clauses: one 'prefatory' and the other 'operative.' The bit about a well-regulated militia is just preliminary throat clearing; the framers don't really get down to business until they start talking about 'the right of the people ... shall not be infringed,..
> 
> However, it is has also been successfully argued in court that the use of commas was far less restrictive in 18th century; that is writers liberally used commas between most all clauses thus the primary two clauses were a conditions for the operative clause, "shall not be infringed...".
> 
> One can argue this point either way but the fact is the 2nd amendment was a compromise between states who favored a strong standing army and states who simple wanted local militias. So just as today, the two sides could read the amendment as favoring their belief.
> 
> Today 60% of gun owners state that protection is the reason they purchased a gun.  38% said it was hunting.  Those were certainly not the reasons the founders put the 2nd amendment in the Constitution.  Guns in those days were muskets without a rear sight that were certainly not very useful for hunting or protection.  There only really practical use was in being fired in volleys as in militias.
> 
> Unlike today, the approval of the 2nd amendment was not a news worthy event because most people had little interest in owning guns.  Only 1 in every 5 households owned a musket and few people had any interest in buying one since the cost was 2 weeks to a months pay.  They had no rear sights making them very inaccurate and loading time for most people was 30 seconds to a minute. Thus, a good knife or axe was much better self protection at a fraction of the cost of a musket.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"Unlike today, the approval of the 2nd amendment was not a news worthy event because most people had little interest in owning guns. Only 1 in every 5 households owned a musket and few people had any interest in buying one since the cost was 2 weeks to a months pay."
> *
> Source?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Coincidentally, there were no mass school shootings in the 1700's, No assault rifles, either.  Thus proving what an anachronism the 2nd amendment  has become.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Most murders were committed with knives, and -- contrary to the myth of primitive violence -- there were few murders outside Indian warfare (in North Carolina, on the average, there was only one murder every two years between 1663 and 1740).
> 
> There was only one recorded murder using a gun.
> 
> Spiking the Gun Myth*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Most murders are committed by murders, it goes without saying. Knives I use evey day. cooking food, mostly. Knives are variable tools. What the hell do you do with guns? There within lies the question. You kill or train to kill. That's pretty much it. Who needs THAT?
Click to expand...

*The primary reason people have guns is to kill other people that have guns.  The secondary reason is to kill animals.  It's all about the need kill.*


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The punctuation means everything. It’s why the 2nd is in The Bill of Rights. Using your logic, the article would not be within the 1st 10 articles at all.
> 
> The 1st 10 outline individual rights, and the 2nd would be so out of place as to be laughable.
> 
> It would be like adding The History of the Ford Mustang within the Old Testament.
> 
> A really bad placement.
> 
> The founding fathers were not dumb.
> 
> 
> 
> that is Your story bro; the punctuation changes No Thing about Second Article of Amendment.  Text is Every Thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Punctuation means everything.
> 
> "Hey, let's eat, Dad!"       "Hey, let's eat Dad!"
> Are you claiming those two sentences mean the same thing?
> 
> And calling something a collective right while refusing to explain why speaks volumes where your argument is concerned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> special pleading much?  now, try it with our Second Amendment.  story telling, right wingers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just calling something a logical fallacy does not make it one.  My example on punctuation is accurate.   And you never have explained your reasoning for insisting the 2nd is a collective right.   Which is not surprising, since every constitutional scholar has argued it is an individual right.  Even the ones that don't like it agree that it is an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just another story, right wingers.  all political talk and no political action.
> 
> put it in writing, right wingers, like the left is willing to do.
Click to expand...


LMAO!!!!    Oh that is hilarious!!!    YOu have the gall to post that after continually refusing to answer questions??   On virtually ANY topic?

That is a joke.   They DID put it in writing.  And those who understand english, understand that the 2nd amendment is an individual right.

YOu can call it judicial activism all you want.  It is the law of the land.


----------



## WinterBorn

MaryL said:


> I open a letter with a knife and  also, say dice and slice dinner. I never shot open a letter, or used a gun to prepare my food. Didn't shoot off a lid on a can of salsa. A good chef is only as good as his knives, But guns?   Guns are about killing. Who is kidding who here?



I have used my guns to provide food for my family and for many others (some I don't even know).

I have also used my guns to protect livestock of people who provide food for themselves and others.

And in using my gun to provide food, I have done much to protect the environment, both financially and physically.


----------



## emilynghiem

Daryl Hunt said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> Applying 21st Century mores to 18th Century thinking is an exercise in vanity.
> 
> The militia is bound to the right.  The right is not bound to the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to follow the meaning of the 2nd amendment, the Militia is bound to the Government which should be neither right nor left, it just is.
Click to expand...


Yes and no, Daryl Hunt
the 2nd Amendment is incorporated as a part of the Bill of Rights.
Thus there is a natural check where the 2nd Amendment is not intended to be 'abused' to "violate or disparage" any other rights,
including right of security, freedom from unreasonable searches or seizures, and not to be deprived of life liberty or property without due process of laws.

So the 2nd Amendment is bound and limited by the other rights in Constitutional laws.

By the rightwing ideology, this isn't citizens being bound by Govt, but by natural laws that exist independent of govt
which the Constitution put into writing, including the Bill of Rights that spells out rights of individuals that govt CANNOT regulate or infringe upon.

By the leftwing ideology, these rights ARE the govt duty to protect, police and regulate.

It depends if you interpret people to be the government, or government to be the people.
Same with the Militia. If you consider Militia to mean government policing people,
or the people policing government!

Either way, the authority to bear arms is based on enforcing and defending laws
not violating them. That is true whether you see the people or the govt as being in charge,
the right to bear arms is for defense of the law, not for violating any laws or rights. Or else it contradicts the rest of the Bill of Rights that the 2nd Amendment is part of and used for enforcement.


----------



## WinterBorn

Flopper said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Punctuation is important in any legal document because it changes the meaning in one way or another.
> 
> The courts have ruled that in the 2nd amendment the second comma divides the amendment into two clauses: one 'prefatory' and the other 'operative.' The bit about a well-regulated militia is just preliminary throat clearing; the framers don't really get down to business until they start talking about 'the right of the people ... shall not be infringed,..
> 
> However, it is has also been successfully argued in court that the use of commas was far less restrictive in 18th century; that is writers liberally used commas between most all clauses thus the primary two clauses were a conditions for the operative clause, "shall not be infringed...".
> 
> One can argue this point either way but the fact is the 2nd amendment was a compromise between states who favored a strong standing army and states who simple wanted local militias. So just as today, the two sides could read the amendment as favoring their belief.
> 
> Today 60% of gun owners state that protection is the reason they purchased a gun.  38% said it was hunting.  Those were certainly not the reasons the founders put the 2nd amendment in the Constitution.  Guns in those days were muskets without a rear sight that were certainly not very useful for hunting or protection.  There only really practical use was in being fired in volleys as in militias.
> 
> Unlike today, the approval of the 2nd amendment was not a news worthy event because most people had little interest in owning guns.  Only 1 in every 5 households owned a musket and few people had any interest in buying one since the cost was 2 weeks to a months pay.  They had no rear sights making them very inaccurate and loading time for most people was 30 seconds to a minute. Thus, a good knife or axe was much better self protection at a fraction of the cost of a musket.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Unlike today, the approval of the 2nd amendment was not a news worthy event because most people had little interest in owning guns. Only 1 in every 5 households owned a musket and few people had any interest in buying one since the cost was 2 weeks to a months pay."
> *
> Source?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Coincidentally, there were no mass school shootings in the 1700's, No assault rifles, either.  Thus proving what an anachronism the 2nd amendment  has become.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Most murders were committed with knives, and -- contrary to the myth of primitive violence -- there were few murders outside Indian warfare (in North Carolina, on the average, there was only one murder every two years between 1663 and 1740).
> 
> There was only one recorded murder using a gun.
> 
> Spiking the Gun Myth*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Most murders are committed by murders, it goes without saying. Knives I use evey day. cooking food, mostly. Knives are variable tools. What the hell do you do with guns? There within lies the question. You kill or train to kill. That's pretty much it. Who needs THAT?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The primary reason people have guns is to kill other people that have guns.  The secondary reason is to kill animals.  It's all about the need kill.*
Click to expand...


I think the priorities of why people ow guns varies.  I know people who put hunting as the top priority.  I know some who put other shooting sports as the top priority.  And yes, many have them for defensive purposes.


----------



## Pogo

Flopper said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes, and only the right wing appeals to ignorance of the law, and plain reason, not to mention, legal axioms.
> 
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> *— George Mason*_, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788_
> Only well regulated militia of the whole People, a few public officials excepted, are declared Necessary, the unorganized militia is not declared Necessary and may be Infringed by well regulated militia, when Necessary for the security of a free State.
> 
> Our supreme law of the land is about the resolution of any conflict of laws, not the whole and entire concept of natural or individual rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then the 2nd would have ended at the second comma, since it didn’t, it is expressing a right granted beyond the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the punctuation changes nothing.  you can remove all of it, and it means the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The punctuation means everything. It’s why the 2nd is in The Bill of Rights. Using your logic, the article would not be within the 1st 10 articles at all.
> 
> The 1st 10 outline individual rights, and the 2nd would be so out of place as to be laughable.
> 
> It would be like adding The History of the Ford Mustang within the Old Testament.
> 
> A really bad placement.
> 
> The founding fathers were not dumb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is Your story bro; the punctuation changes No Thing about Second Article of Amendment.  Text is Every Thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Punctuation is important in any legal document because it changes the meaning in one way or another.
> 
> The courts have ruled that in the 2nd amendment the second comma divides the amendment into two clauses: one 'prefatory' and the other 'operative.' The bit about a well-regulated militia is just preliminary throat clearing; the framers don't really get down to business until they start talking about 'the right of the people ... shall not be infringed,..
> 
> However, it is has also been successfully argued in court that the use of commas was far less restrictive in 18th century; that is writers liberally used commas between most all clauses thus the primary two clauses were a conditions for the operative clause, "shall not be infringed...".
> 
> One can argue this point either way but the fact is the 2nd amendment was a compromise between states who favored a strong standing army and states who simple wanted local militias. So just as today, the two sides could read the amendment as favoring their belief.
> 
> Today 60% of gun owners state that protection is the reason they purchased a gun.  38% said it was hunting.  Those were certainly not the reasons the founders put the 2nd amendment in the Constitution.  Guns in those days were muskets without a rear sight that were certainly not very useful for hunting or protection.  There only really practical use was in being fired in volleys as in militias.
> 
> Unlike today, the approval of the 2nd amendment was not a news worthy event because most people had little interest in owning guns.  Only 1 in every 5 households owned a musket and few people had any interest in buying one since the cost was 2 weeks to a months pay.  Most muskets were passed down from father to son and were not well maintained.  In fact, a survey at the time done by a North Carolina militia found that over half were inoperable.   They also had no rear sights making them very inaccurate and loading time for most people was 30 seconds to a minute. Thus, a good knife or axe was much better self protection at a fraction of the cost of a musket.*
Click to expand...


I wouldn't put a whole lot of stock in punctuation from a 200+ year old document, and I'm a proofreader.  Commas were used more or less indiscriminately in that less-linguistically refined period, which also displays the old German practice of capitalizing nouns ("Militia"... Security"... "State"... etc).  Language evolves over time, and the "proper" use of a comma and what it means or doesn't mean wasn't nearly as meticulously defined as it came to be.

The adjective "prefatory" though, is pure absolute snow-job *bullshit*.  All "prefatory" means is that it "comes before" or "introduces" another part (as in _preface_).  We can already see that it come first, so "prefatory" tells us absolutely nothing of what its _function _is.  And that's an enigma; the introductory phrase "a well regulated Militia being necessary to the Security of a free State" has no discernible reason to exist.  A Constitution has no need to *argue *its case for why it sets out what it does; it simply declares "these are the rules".  There's no point in _rationalizing _the Amendment as if it were part of some debate, nor does any other Amendment do so (nor should it), so the presence of the clause remains a head-scratcher.

Ultimately the presence of a subordinate clause that seems to want to argue its existence looks like either sloppy or unfinished work, or both.  If it's intended as a limitation, which is the only conceivable direction it would have wanted to go, then it's poorly written as such.


----------



## MaryL

Flopper said:


> [QUO2nd amendment. TE="MaryL, post: 19871485, member: 34685"]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Punctuation is important in any legal document because it changes the meaning in one way or another.
> 
> The courts have ruled that in the 2nd amendment the second comma divides the amendment into two clauses: one 'prefatory' and the other 'operative.' The bit about a well-regulated militia is just preliminary throat clearing; the framers don't really get down to business until they start talking about 'the right of the people ... shall not be infringed,..
> 
> However, it is has also been successfully argued in court that the use of commas was far less restrictive in 18th century; that is writers liberally used commas between most all clauses thus the primary two clauses were a conditions for the operative clause, "shall not be infringed...".
> 
> One can argue this point either way but the fact is the 2nd amendment was a compromise between states who favored a strong standing army and states who simple wanted local militias. So just as today, the two sides could read the amendment as favoring their belief.
> 
> Today 60% of gun owners state that protection is the reason they purchased a gun.  38% said it was hunting.  Those were certainly not the reasons the founders put the 2nd amendment in the Constitution.  Guns in those days were muskets without a rear sight that were certainly not very useful for hunting or protection.  There only really practical use was in being fired in volleys as in militias.
> 
> Unlike today, the approval of the 2nd amendment was not a news worthy event because most people had little interest in owning guns.  Only 1 in every 5 households owned a musket and few people had any interest in buying one since the cost was 2 weeks to a months pay.  They had no rear sights making them very inaccurate and loading time for most people was 30 seconds to a minute. Thus, a good knife or axe was much better self protection at a fraction of the cost of a musket.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Unlike today, the approval of the 2nd amendment was not a news worthy event because most people had little interest in owning guns. Only 1 in every 5 households owned a musket and few people had any interest in buying one since the cost was 2 weeks to a months pay."
> *
> Source?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Coincidentally, there were no mass school shootings in the 1700's, No assault rifles, either.  Thus proving what an anachronism the 2nd amendment  has become.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Most murders were committed with knives, and -- contrary to the myth of primitive violence -- there were few murders outside Indian warfare (in North Carolina, on the average, there was only one murder every two years between 1663 and 1740).
> 
> There was only one recorded murder using a gun.
> 
> Spiking the Gun Myth*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Most murders are committed by murders, it goes without saying. Knives I use evey day. cooking food, mostly. Knives are variable tools. What the hell do you do with guns? There within lies the question. You kill or train to kill. That's pretty much it. Who needs THAT?
Click to expand...

*The primary reason people have guns is to kill other people that have guns.  The secondary reason is to kill animals.  It's all about the need kill.*[/QUOTE] Well, I am good with not killing anything, animals or robbers. Or being killed , either by hoodlums with guns. Take away their guns, and they are just nothing...Taking away their guns, now there within lies the crux of the biscuit. We have maniacs that enable criminals that swear by their holier than thou sacrosanct  2nd Amendment. The Constitution  has been amended before, so what's the big deal now?


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

MaryL said:


> The Constitution  has been amended before, so what's the big deal now?



None. Have at it.


----------



## MaryL

Imagine we repeal the 2nd amendment. If nobody  had guns, we could relax. No more armed maniacs. We would all be on a even playing field more or less.  Who, in there right mind, would oppose THAT?


----------



## Pogo

MaryL said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> the punctuation changes nothing.  you can remove all of it, and it means the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The punctuation means everything. It’s why the 2nd is in The Bill of Rights. Using your logic, the article would not be within the 1st 10 articles at all.
> 
> The 1st 10 outline individual rights, and the 2nd would be so out of place as to be laughable.
> 
> It would be like adding The History of the Ford Mustang within the Old Testament.
> 
> A really bad placement.
> 
> The founding fathers were not dumb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is Your story bro; the punctuation changes No Thing about Second Article of Amendment.  Text is Every Thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Punctuation is important in any legal document because it changes the meaning in one way or another.
> 
> The courts have ruled that in the 2nd amendment the second comma divides the amendment into two clauses: one 'prefatory' and the other 'operative.' The bit about a well-regulated militia is just preliminary throat clearing; the framers don't really get down to business until they start talking about 'the right of the people ... shall not be infringed,..
> 
> However, it is has also been successfully argued in court that the use of commas was far less restrictive in 18th century; that is writers liberally used commas between most all clauses thus the primary two clauses were a conditions for the operative clause, "shall not be infringed...".
> 
> One can argue this point either way but the fact is the 2nd amendment was a compromise between states who favored a strong standing army and states who simple wanted local militias. So just as today, the two sides could read the amendment as favoring their belief.
> 
> Today 60% of gun owners state that protection is the reason they purchased a gun.  38% said it was hunting.  Those were certainly not the reasons the founders put the 2nd amendment in the Constitution.  Guns in those days were muskets without a rear sight that were certainly not very useful for hunting or protection.  There only really practical use was in being fired in volleys as in militias.
> 
> Unlike today, the approval of the 2nd amendment was not a news worthy event because most people had little interest in owning guns.  Only 1 in every 5 households owned a musket and few people had any interest in buying one since the cost was 2 weeks to a months pay.  They had no rear sights making them very inaccurate and loading time for most people was 30 seconds to a minute. Thus, a good knife or axe was much better self protection at a fraction of the cost of a musket.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"Unlike today, the approval of the 2nd amendment was not a news worthy event because most people had little interest in owning guns. Only 1 in every 5 households owned a musket and few people had any interest in buying one since the cost was 2 weeks to a months pay."
> *
> Source?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Coincidentally, there were no mass school shootings in the 1700's, No assault rifles, either.  Thus proving what an anachronism the 2nd amendment  has become.
Click to expand...


Mass shootings such as the Nevada country music festival shooter in the hotel window, school shootings, movie theater shootings, church shootings etc etc would have been impossible with18th century firearm technology.  It would be half a century before the Minié Ball was invented, which vastly improved accuracy, range and lethality in the target, being designed to shatter bones.  So it would have been impossible for the writers of the Constitution to foresee that kind of firearm which saw its first action in the Crimean War of the 1850s and American Civil War ---- which is why the latter left so many amputees.  So as far as the time the Constitution was written, that revolution in what firearms could do lay a lifetime in the future.

And of course technological innovation would continue well beyond that stage.


----------



## MaryL

Billy_Kinetta said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution  has been amended before, so what's the big deal now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None. Have at it.
Click to expand...

The 18 Amendment was ratified, then we got  the 21st amendment, which in effect repealed the 18th. So yes, it has happened before, kiddo. Going somewhere with this?


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

Pogo said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then the 2nd would have ended at the second comma, since it didn’t, it is expressing a right granted beyond the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> the punctuation changes nothing.  you can remove all of it, and it means the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The punctuation means everything. It’s why the 2nd is in The Bill of Rights. Using your logic, the article would not be within the 1st 10 articles at all.
> 
> The 1st 10 outline individual rights, and the 2nd would be so out of place as to be laughable.
> 
> It would be like adding The History of the Ford Mustang within the Old Testament.
> 
> A really bad placement.
> 
> The founding fathers were not dumb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is Your story bro; the punctuation changes No Thing about Second Article of Amendment.  Text is Every Thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Punctuation is important in any legal document because it changes the meaning in one way or another.
> 
> The courts have ruled that in the 2nd amendment the second comma divides the amendment into two clauses: one 'prefatory' and the other 'operative.' The bit about a well-regulated militia is just preliminary throat clearing; the framers don't really get down to business until they start talking about 'the right of the people ... shall not be infringed,..
> 
> However, it is has also been successfully argued in court that the use of commas was far less restrictive in 18th century; that is writers liberally used commas between most all clauses thus the primary two clauses were a conditions for the operative clause, "shall not be infringed...".
> 
> One can argue this point either way but the fact is the 2nd amendment was a compromise between states who favored a strong standing army and states who simple wanted local militias. So just as today, the two sides could read the amendment as favoring their belief.
> 
> Today 60% of gun owners state that protection is the reason they purchased a gun.  38% said it was hunting.  Those were certainly not the reasons the founders put the 2nd amendment in the Constitution.  Guns in those days were muskets without a rear sight that were certainly not very useful for hunting or protection.  There only really practical use was in being fired in volleys as in militias.
> 
> Unlike today, the approval of the 2nd amendment was not a news worthy event because most people had little interest in owning guns.  Only 1 in every 5 households owned a musket and few people had any interest in buying one since the cost was 2 weeks to a months pay.  Most muskets were passed down from father to son and were not well maintained.  In fact, a survey at the time done by a North Carolina militia found that over half were inoperable.   They also had no rear sights making them very inaccurate and loading time for most people was 30 seconds to a minute. Thus, a good knife or axe was much better self protection at a fraction of the cost of a musket.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wouldn't put a whole lot of stock in punctuation from a 200+ year old document, and I'm a proofreader.  Commas were used more or less indiscriminately in that less-linguistically refined period, which also displays the old German practice of capitalizing nouns ("Militia"... Security"... "State"... etc).  Language evolves over time, and the "proper" use of a comma and what it means or doesn't mean wasn't nearly as meticulously defined as it came to be.
> 
> The adjective "prefatory" though, is pure absolute snow-job *bullshit*.  All "prefatory" means is that it "comes before" or "introduces" another part (as in _preface_).  We can already see that it come first, so "prefatory" tells us absolutely nothing of what its _function _is.  And that's an enigma; the introductory phrase "a well regulated Militia being necessary to the Security of a free State" has no discernible reason to exist.  A Constitution has no need to *argue *its case for why it sets out what it does; it simply declares "these are the rules".  There's no point in _rationalizing _the Amendment as if it were part of some debate, nor does any other Amendment do so (nor should it), so the presence of the clause remains a head-scratcher.
> 
> Ultimately the presence of a subordinate clause that seems to want to argue its existence looks like either sloppy or unfinished work, or both.  If it's intended as a limitation, which is the only conceivable direction it would have wanted to go, then it's poorly written as such.
Click to expand...


Funny.

The only people who think it's "poorly written" are those who want their misinterpretation accepted.


----------



## MaryL

So I am like, whats going to stop someone from ratifying our constitution like say, the one that  alters our current Constitution to reflect the tenor of our times? It's going to happen....Guns are NOT what they were in 1776.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

MaryL said:


> So I am like, whats going to stop someone from ratifying our constitution like say, the one that  alters our current Constitution to reflect the tenor of our times? It's going to happen....Guns are NOT what they were in 1776.



Indeed, but human nature is the same.


----------



## Pogo

Billy_Kinetta said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> the punctuation changes nothing.  you can remove all of it, and it means the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The punctuation means everything. It’s why the 2nd is in The Bill of Rights. Using your logic, the article would not be within the 1st 10 articles at all.
> 
> The 1st 10 outline individual rights, and the 2nd would be so out of place as to be laughable.
> 
> It would be like adding The History of the Ford Mustang within the Old Testament.
> 
> A really bad placement.
> 
> The founding fathers were not dumb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is Your story bro; the punctuation changes No Thing about Second Article of Amendment.  Text is Every Thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Punctuation is important in any legal document because it changes the meaning in one way or another.
> 
> The courts have ruled that in the 2nd amendment the second comma divides the amendment into two clauses: one 'prefatory' and the other 'operative.' The bit about a well-regulated militia is just preliminary throat clearing; the framers don't really get down to business until they start talking about 'the right of the people ... shall not be infringed,..
> 
> However, it is has also been successfully argued in court that the use of commas was far less restrictive in 18th century; that is writers liberally used commas between most all clauses thus the primary two clauses were a conditions for the operative clause, "shall not be infringed...".
> 
> One can argue this point either way but the fact is the 2nd amendment was a compromise between states who favored a strong standing army and states who simple wanted local militias. So just as today, the two sides could read the amendment as favoring their belief.
> 
> Today 60% of gun owners state that protection is the reason they purchased a gun.  38% said it was hunting.  Those were certainly not the reasons the founders put the 2nd amendment in the Constitution.  Guns in those days were muskets without a rear sight that were certainly not very useful for hunting or protection.  There only really practical use was in being fired in volleys as in militias.
> 
> Unlike today, the approval of the 2nd amendment was not a news worthy event because most people had little interest in owning guns.  Only 1 in every 5 households owned a musket and few people had any interest in buying one since the cost was 2 weeks to a months pay.  Most muskets were passed down from father to son and were not well maintained.  In fact, a survey at the time done by a North Carolina militia found that over half were inoperable.   They also had no rear sights making them very inaccurate and loading time for most people was 30 seconds to a minute. Thus, a good knife or axe was much better self protection at a fraction of the cost of a musket.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wouldn't put a whole lot of stock in punctuation from a 200+ year old document, and I'm a proofreader.  Commas were used more or less indiscriminately in that less-linguistically refined period, which also displays the old German practice of capitalizing nouns ("Militia"... Security"... "State"... etc).  Language evolves over time, and the "proper" use of a comma and what it means or doesn't mean wasn't nearly as meticulously defined as it came to be.
> 
> The adjective "prefatory" though, is pure absolute snow-job *bullshit*.  All "prefatory" means is that it "comes before" or "introduces" another part (as in _preface_).  We can already see that it come first, so "prefatory" tells us absolutely nothing of what its _function _is.  And that's an enigma; the introductory phrase "a well regulated Militia being necessary to the Security of a free State" has no discernible reason to exist.  A Constitution has no need to *argue *its case for why it sets out what it does; it simply declares "these are the rules".  There's no point in _rationalizing _the Amendment as if it were part of some debate, nor does any other Amendment do so (nor should it), so the presence of the clause remains a head-scratcher.
> 
> Ultimately the presence of a subordinate clause that seems to want to argue its existence looks like either sloppy or unfinished work, or both.  If it's intended as a limitation, which is the only conceivable direction it would have wanted to go, then it's poorly written as such.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny.
> 
> The only people who think it's "poorly written" are those who want their misinterpretation accepted.
Click to expand...


Fine -- then why don't you be the first person in the history of this nation, right here on USMB --- to essplain to the class why a Constitution would need to justify itself as if it's posting on a message board.

C'mon, hook a brutha up.  "Prefatory" won't do it --- we already know WHERE the clause is.  What we want to know is WHY it is.

As I said, I don't have an 'interpretation'.  As I said, it's an enigma.  Nobody has an interpretation.  Hence --- "poorly written".

And as long as we're on the subject, a Court explaining it as a "prefatory" clause is also "poorly written".  That's just unmitigated bullshit dancing around a question it can't answer either.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

Pogo said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The punctuation means everything. It’s why the 2nd is in The Bill of Rights. Using your logic, the article would not be within the 1st 10 articles at all.
> 
> The 1st 10 outline individual rights, and the 2nd would be so out of place as to be laughable.
> 
> It would be like adding The History of the Ford Mustang within the Old Testament.
> 
> A really bad placement.
> 
> The founding fathers were not dumb.
> 
> 
> 
> that is Your story bro; the punctuation changes No Thing about Second Article of Amendment.  Text is Every Thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Punctuation is important in any legal document because it changes the meaning in one way or another.
> 
> The courts have ruled that in the 2nd amendment the second comma divides the amendment into two clauses: one 'prefatory' and the other 'operative.' The bit about a well-regulated militia is just preliminary throat clearing; the framers don't really get down to business until they start talking about 'the right of the people ... shall not be infringed,..
> 
> However, it is has also been successfully argued in court that the use of commas was far less restrictive in 18th century; that is writers liberally used commas between most all clauses thus the primary two clauses were a conditions for the operative clause, "shall not be infringed...".
> 
> One can argue this point either way but the fact is the 2nd amendment was a compromise between states who favored a strong standing army and states who simple wanted local militias. So just as today, the two sides could read the amendment as favoring their belief.
> 
> Today 60% of gun owners state that protection is the reason they purchased a gun.  38% said it was hunting.  Those were certainly not the reasons the founders put the 2nd amendment in the Constitution.  Guns in those days were muskets without a rear sight that were certainly not very useful for hunting or protection.  There only really practical use was in being fired in volleys as in militias.
> 
> Unlike today, the approval of the 2nd amendment was not a news worthy event because most people had little interest in owning guns.  Only 1 in every 5 households owned a musket and few people had any interest in buying one since the cost was 2 weeks to a months pay.  Most muskets were passed down from father to son and were not well maintained.  In fact, a survey at the time done by a North Carolina militia found that over half were inoperable.   They also had no rear sights making them very inaccurate and loading time for most people was 30 seconds to a minute. Thus, a good knife or axe was much better self protection at a fraction of the cost of a musket.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wouldn't put a whole lot of stock in punctuation from a 200+ year old document, and I'm a proofreader.  Commas were used more or less indiscriminately in that less-linguistically refined period, which also displays the old German practice of capitalizing nouns ("Militia"... Security"... "State"... etc).  Language evolves over time, and the "proper" use of a comma and what it means or doesn't mean wasn't nearly as meticulously defined as it came to be.
> 
> The adjective "prefatory" though, is pure absolute snow-job *bullshit*.  All "prefatory" means is that it "comes before" or "introduces" another part (as in _preface_).  We can already see that it come first, so "prefatory" tells us absolutely nothing of what its _function _is.  And that's an enigma; the introductory phrase "a well regulated Militia being necessary to the Security of a free State" has no discernible reason to exist.  A Constitution has no need to *argue *its case for why it sets out what it does; it simply declares "these are the rules".  There's no point in _rationalizing _the Amendment as if it were part of some debate, nor does any other Amendment do so (nor should it), so the presence of the clause remains a head-scratcher.
> 
> Ultimately the presence of a subordinate clause that seems to want to argue its existence looks like either sloppy or unfinished work, or both.  If it's intended as a limitation, which is the only conceivable direction it would have wanted to go, then it's poorly written as such.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny.
> 
> The only people who think it's "poorly written" are those who want their misinterpretation accepted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fine -- then why don't you be the first person in the history of this nation, right here on USMB --- to essplain to the class why a Constitution would need to justify itself as if it's posting on a message board.
> 
> C'mon, hook a brutha up.
Click to expand...


The Constitution requires no justification.  The Founders wrote it quite clearly.


----------



## Pogo

Billy_Kinetta said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> that is Your story bro; the punctuation changes No Thing about Second Article of Amendment.  Text is Every Thing.
> 
> 
> 
> *Punctuation is important in any legal document because it changes the meaning in one way or another.
> 
> The courts have ruled that in the 2nd amendment the second comma divides the amendment into two clauses: one 'prefatory' and the other 'operative.' The bit about a well-regulated militia is just preliminary throat clearing; the framers don't really get down to business until they start talking about 'the right of the people ... shall not be infringed,..
> 
> However, it is has also been successfully argued in court that the use of commas was far less restrictive in 18th century; that is writers liberally used commas between most all clauses thus the primary two clauses were a conditions for the operative clause, "shall not be infringed...".
> 
> One can argue this point either way but the fact is the 2nd amendment was a compromise between states who favored a strong standing army and states who simple wanted local militias. So just as today, the two sides could read the amendment as favoring their belief.
> 
> Today 60% of gun owners state that protection is the reason they purchased a gun.  38% said it was hunting.  Those were certainly not the reasons the founders put the 2nd amendment in the Constitution.  Guns in those days were muskets without a rear sight that were certainly not very useful for hunting or protection.  There only really practical use was in being fired in volleys as in militias.
> 
> Unlike today, the approval of the 2nd amendment was not a news worthy event because most people had little interest in owning guns.  Only 1 in every 5 households owned a musket and few people had any interest in buying one since the cost was 2 weeks to a months pay.  Most muskets were passed down from father to son and were not well maintained.  In fact, a survey at the time done by a North Carolina militia found that over half were inoperable.   They also had no rear sights making them very inaccurate and loading time for most people was 30 seconds to a minute. Thus, a good knife or axe was much better self protection at a fraction of the cost of a musket.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wouldn't put a whole lot of stock in punctuation from a 200+ year old document, and I'm a proofreader.  Commas were used more or less indiscriminately in that less-linguistically refined period, which also displays the old German practice of capitalizing nouns ("Militia"... Security"... "State"... etc).  Language evolves over time, and the "proper" use of a comma and what it means or doesn't mean wasn't nearly as meticulously defined as it came to be.
> 
> The adjective "prefatory" though, is pure absolute snow-job *bullshit*.  All "prefatory" means is that it "comes before" or "introduces" another part (as in _preface_).  We can already see that it come first, so "prefatory" tells us absolutely nothing of what its _function _is.  And that's an enigma; the introductory phrase "a well regulated Militia being necessary to the Security of a free State" has no discernible reason to exist.  A Constitution has no need to *argue *its case for why it sets out what it does; it simply declares "these are the rules".  There's no point in _rationalizing _the Amendment as if it were part of some debate, nor does any other Amendment do so (nor should it), so the presence of the clause remains a head-scratcher.
> 
> Ultimately the presence of a subordinate clause that seems to want to argue its existence looks like either sloppy or unfinished work, or both.  If it's intended as a limitation, which is the only conceivable direction it would have wanted to go, then it's poorly written as such.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny.
> 
> The only people who think it's "poorly written" are those who want their misinterpretation accepted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fine -- then why don't you be the first person in the history of this nation, right here on USMB --- to essplain to the class why a Constitution would need to justify itself as if it's posting on a message board.
> 
> C'mon, hook a brutha up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Constitution requires no justification.  The Founders wrote it quite clearly.
Click to expand...


That's correct --- a constitution (any constitution) needs no justification.  It is its own justification.  Any argument for or against any part of it, would have been exercised in committee, BEFORE its final language was settled upon.

So --- that being the case upon which we are agreed ---  what the fuck is the function of this phrase?



See what I mean about "enigma"?


----------



## MaryL

I like guns overall, I do. But  WE can do just fine without them too. Anyone  here think their sole survival hinges on firearms ?


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

Pogo said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Punctuation is important in any legal document because it changes the meaning in one way or another.
> 
> The courts have ruled that in the 2nd amendment the second comma divides the amendment into two clauses: one 'prefatory' and the other 'operative.' The bit about a well-regulated militia is just preliminary throat clearing; the framers don't really get down to business until they start talking about 'the right of the people ... shall not be infringed,..
> 
> However, it is has also been successfully argued in court that the use of commas was far less restrictive in 18th century; that is writers liberally used commas between most all clauses thus the primary two clauses were a conditions for the operative clause, "shall not be infringed...".
> 
> One can argue this point either way but the fact is the 2nd amendment was a compromise between states who favored a strong standing army and states who simple wanted local militias. So just as today, the two sides could read the amendment as favoring their belief.
> 
> Today 60% of gun owners state that protection is the reason they purchased a gun.  38% said it was hunting.  Those were certainly not the reasons the founders put the 2nd amendment in the Constitution.  Guns in those days were muskets without a rear sight that were certainly not very useful for hunting or protection.  There only really practical use was in being fired in volleys as in militias.
> 
> Unlike today, the approval of the 2nd amendment was not a news worthy event because most people had little interest in owning guns.  Only 1 in every 5 households owned a musket and few people had any interest in buying one since the cost was 2 weeks to a months pay.  Most muskets were passed down from father to son and were not well maintained.  In fact, a survey at the time done by a North Carolina militia found that over half were inoperable.   They also had no rear sights making them very inaccurate and loading time for most people was 30 seconds to a minute. Thus, a good knife or axe was much better self protection at a fraction of the cost of a musket.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't put a whole lot of stock in punctuation from a 200+ year old document, and I'm a proofreader.  Commas were used more or less indiscriminately in that less-linguistically refined period, which also displays the old German practice of capitalizing nouns ("Militia"... Security"... "State"... etc).  Language evolves over time, and the "proper" use of a comma and what it means or doesn't mean wasn't nearly as meticulously defined as it came to be.
> 
> The adjective "prefatory" though, is pure absolute snow-job *bullshit*.  All "prefatory" means is that it "comes before" or "introduces" another part (as in _preface_).  We can already see that it come first, so "prefatory" tells us absolutely nothing of what its _function _is.  And that's an enigma; the introductory phrase "a well regulated Militia being necessary to the Security of a free State" has no discernible reason to exist.  A Constitution has no need to *argue *its case for why it sets out what it does; it simply declares "these are the rules".  There's no point in _rationalizing _the Amendment as if it were part of some debate, nor does any other Amendment do so (nor should it), so the presence of the clause remains a head-scratcher.
> 
> Ultimately the presence of a subordinate clause that seems to want to argue its existence looks like either sloppy or unfinished work, or both.  If it's intended as a limitation, which is the only conceivable direction it would have wanted to go, then it's poorly written as such.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny.
> 
> The only people who think it's "poorly written" are those who want their misinterpretation accepted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fine -- then why don't you be the first person in the history of this nation, right here on USMB --- to essplain to the class why a Constitution would need to justify itself as if it's posting on a message board.
> 
> C'mon, hook a brutha up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Constitution requires no justification.  The Founders wrote it quite clearly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's correct --- a constitution (any constitution) needs no justification.  It is its own justification.  Any argument for or against any part of it, would have been exercised in committee, BEFORE its final language was settled upon.
> 
> So --- that being the case upon which we are agreed ---  what the fuck is the function of this phrase?
> 
> 
> 
> See what I mean about "enigma"?
Click to expand...


There's no enigma.  The militia is bound to the right.  The right is not bound to the militia.


----------



## Pogo

Billy_Kinetta said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't put a whole lot of stock in punctuation from a 200+ year old document, and I'm a proofreader.  Commas were used more or less indiscriminately in that less-linguistically refined period, which also displays the old German practice of capitalizing nouns ("Militia"... Security"... "State"... etc).  Language evolves over time, and the "proper" use of a comma and what it means or doesn't mean wasn't nearly as meticulously defined as it came to be.
> 
> The adjective "prefatory" though, is pure absolute snow-job *bullshit*.  All "prefatory" means is that it "comes before" or "introduces" another part (as in _preface_).  We can already see that it come first, so "prefatory" tells us absolutely nothing of what its _function _is.  And that's an enigma; the introductory phrase "a well regulated Militia being necessary to the Security of a free State" has no discernible reason to exist.  A Constitution has no need to *argue *its case for why it sets out what it does; it simply declares "these are the rules".  There's no point in _rationalizing _the Amendment as if it were part of some debate, nor does any other Amendment do so (nor should it), so the presence of the clause remains a head-scratcher.
> 
> Ultimately the presence of a subordinate clause that seems to want to argue its existence looks like either sloppy or unfinished work, or both.  If it's intended as a limitation, which is the only conceivable direction it would have wanted to go, then it's poorly written as such.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny.
> 
> The only people who think it's "poorly written" are those who want their misinterpretation accepted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fine -- then why don't you be the first person in the history of this nation, right here on USMB --- to essplain to the class why a Constitution would need to justify itself as if it's posting on a message board.
> 
> C'mon, hook a brutha up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Constitution requires no justification.  The Founders wrote it quite clearly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's correct --- a constitution (any constitution) needs no justification.  It is its own justification.  Any argument for or against any part of it, would have been exercised in committee, BEFORE its final language was settled upon.
> 
> So --- that being the case upon which we are agreed ---  what the fuck is the function of this phrase?
> 
> 
> 
> See what I mean about "enigma"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's no enigma.  The militia is bound to the right.  The right is not bound to the militia.
Click to expand...


The fact that you can't answer the question, affirms the enigma.

That's what an enigma is.  It can't be figured out.

Ergo my point stands --- it's poorly written.  A constitution is no place for riddles.


----------



## MaryL

I don't  think anyone is bound to anything, strictly speaking. I voted for Trump. So? My  taxes  are still are outrageous, and illegal aliens still  rule  the roost, and brother Davy that died in Korea is still dead, and so it goes. What does any of this solve?


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

Pogo said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny.
> 
> The only people who think it's "poorly written" are those who want their misinterpretation accepted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fine -- then why don't you be the first person in the history of this nation, right here on USMB --- to essplain to the class why a Constitution would need to justify itself as if it's posting on a message board.
> 
> C'mon, hook a brutha up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Constitution requires no justification.  The Founders wrote it quite clearly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's correct --- a constitution (any constitution) needs no justification.  It is its own justification.  Any argument for or against any part of it, would have been exercised in committee, BEFORE its final language was settled upon.
> 
> So --- that being the case upon which we are agreed ---  what the fuck is the function of this phrase?
> 
> 
> 
> See what I mean about "enigma"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's no enigma.  The militia is bound to the right.  The right is not bound to the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that you can't answer the question, affirms the enigma.
> 
> That's what an enigma is.  It can't be figured out.
> 
> Ergo my point stands --- it's poorly written.  A constitution is no place for riddles.
Click to expand...


I answered the question.  That the answer eludes your understanding is not surprising.


----------



## Pogo

Billy_Kinetta said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fine -- then why don't you be the first person in the history of this nation, right here on USMB --- to essplain to the class why a Constitution would need to justify itself as if it's posting on a message board.
> 
> C'mon, hook a brutha up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution requires no justification.  The Founders wrote it quite clearly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's correct --- a constitution (any constitution) needs no justification.  It is its own justification.  Any argument for or against any part of it, would have been exercised in committee, BEFORE its final language was settled upon.
> 
> So --- that being the case upon which we are agreed ---  what the fuck is the function of this phrase?
> 
> 
> 
> See what I mean about "enigma"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's no enigma.  The militia is bound to the right.  The right is not bound to the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that you can't answer the question, affirms the enigma.
> 
> That's what an enigma is.  It can't be figured out.
> 
> Ergo my point stands --- it's poorly written.  A constitution is no place for riddles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I answered the question.  That the answer eludes your understanding is not surprising.
Click to expand...


No, you did not.  No one can answer it.
If it could be answered, it wouldn't be an enigma, now would it.

We already agreed a constitution has no need to argue its case.  Yet here's a subordinate clause appearing to do just that.  Clearly that cannot be its function, as no adversarial argue-party exists to "convince". 

Since that cannot be its function --- what is?

No one knows.  You don't know.  I don't know.  Don't nobody know.
But here's what we do know --- when a constitution contains an extraneous clause for no discernible reason, it's "poorly written".  Unless you think that in writing the Constitution the Founders were simply playing word jumble games with us.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

Pogo said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution requires no justification.  The Founders wrote it quite clearly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's correct --- a constitution (any constitution) needs no justification.  It is its own justification.  Any argument for or against any part of it, would have been exercised in committee, BEFORE its final language was settled upon.
> 
> So --- that being the case upon which we are agreed ---  what the fuck is the function of this phrase?
> 
> 
> 
> See what I mean about "enigma"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's no enigma.  The militia is bound to the right.  The right is not bound to the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that you can't answer the question, affirms the enigma.
> 
> That's what an enigma is.  It can't be figured out.
> 
> Ergo my point stands --- it's poorly written.  A constitution is no place for riddles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I answered the question.  That the answer eludes your understanding is not surprising.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you did not.  No one can answer it.
> If it could be answered, it wouldn't be an enigma, now would it.
> 
> We already agreed a constitution has no need to argue its case.  Yet here's a subordinate clause appearing to do just that.  Clearly that cannot be its function, as no adversarial argue-party exists to "convince".
> 
> Since that cannot be its function --- what is?
> 
> No one knows.  You don't know.  I don't know.  Don't nobody know.
Click to expand...


Your skull is like an ovum.  Once an idea gets in, a shell forms and blocks all other entry.


----------



## Pogo

Billy_Kinetta said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's correct --- a constitution (any constitution) needs no justification.  It is its own justification.  Any argument for or against any part of it, would have been exercised in committee, BEFORE its final language was settled upon.
> 
> So --- that being the case upon which we are agreed ---  what the fuck is the function of this phrase?
> 
> 
> 
> See what I mean about "enigma"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's no enigma.  The militia is bound to the right.  The right is not bound to the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that you can't answer the question, affirms the enigma.
> 
> That's what an enigma is.  It can't be figured out.
> 
> Ergo my point stands --- it's poorly written.  A constitution is no place for riddles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I answered the question.  That the answer eludes your understanding is not surprising.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you did not.  No one can answer it.
> If it could be answered, it wouldn't be an enigma, now would it.
> 
> We already agreed a constitution has no need to argue its case.  Yet here's a subordinate clause appearing to do just that.  Clearly that cannot be its function, as no adversarial argue-party exists to "convince".
> 
> Since that cannot be its function --- what is?
> 
> No one knows.  You don't know.  I don't know.  Don't nobody know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your skull is like an ovum.  Once an idea gets in, a shell forms and blocks all other entry.
Click to expand...


Number one, that still is not an answer to the enigma, and number two, you stole that metaphor from me.


----------



## MaryL

Ergo my point stands --- it's poorly written.  A constitution is no place for riddles.[/QUOTE]

I answered the question.  That the answer eludes your understanding is not surprising.[/QUOTE]

No, you did not.  No one can answer it.
If it could be answered, it wouldn't be an enigma, now would it.

We already agreed a constitution has no need to argue its case.  Yet here's a subordinate clause appearing to do just that.  Clearly that cannot be its function, as no adversarial argue-party exists to "convince".

Since that cannot be its function --- what is?

No one knows.  You don't know.  I don't know.  Don't nobody know.[/QUOTE]

Your skull is like an ovum.  Once an idea gets in, a shell forms and blocks all other entry.[/QUOTE]
Decorum, kids. Let's respect each other. If that isn't a Frank Reagan  quote, it should be.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

Pogo said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no enigma.  The militia is bound to the right.  The right is not bound to the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you can't answer the question, affirms the enigma.
> 
> That's what an enigma is.  It can't be figured out.
> 
> Ergo my point stands --- it's poorly written.  A constitution is no place for riddles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I answered the question.  That the answer eludes your understanding is not surprising.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you did not.  No one can answer it.
> If it could be answered, it wouldn't be an enigma, now would it.
> 
> We already agreed a constitution has no need to argue its case.  Yet here's a subordinate clause appearing to do just that.  Clearly that cannot be its function, as no adversarial argue-party exists to "convince".
> 
> Since that cannot be its function --- what is?
> 
> No one knows.  You don't know.  I don't know.  Don't nobody know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your skull is like an ovum.  Once an idea gets in, a shell forms and blocks all other entry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Number one, that still is not an answer to the enigma, and number two, you stole that metaphor from me.
Click to expand...


That's nice, puppy.  And I first used that metaphor 40-some years ago.

Now run along.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

MaryL said:


> Decorum, kids. Let's respect each other.



I have no respect for Democrats or facsimiles thereof.


----------



## Pogo

Billy_Kinetta said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Decorum, kids. Let's respect each other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no respect for Democrats or facsimiles thereof.
Click to expand...


Still does not apply.  There's nothing about political parties in the point.  As in Zero.

The question remains unanswered; hence an enigma; hence poorly written.


----------



## WinterBorn

MaryL said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> [QUO2nd amendment. TE="MaryL, post: 19871485, member: 34685"]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Punctuation is important in any legal document because it changes the meaning in one way or another.
> 
> The courts have ruled that in the 2nd amendment the second comma divides the amendment into two clauses: one 'prefatory' and the other 'operative.' The bit about a well-regulated militia is just preliminary throat clearing; the framers don't really get down to business until they start talking about 'the right of the people ... shall not be infringed,..
> 
> However, it is has also been successfully argued in court that the use of commas was far less restrictive in 18th century; that is writers liberally used commas between most all clauses thus the primary two clauses were a conditions for the operative clause, "shall not be infringed...".
> 
> One can argue this point either way but the fact is the 2nd amendment was a compromise between states who favored a strong standing army and states who simple wanted local militias. So just as today, the two sides could read the amendment as favoring their belief.
> 
> Today 60% of gun owners state that protection is the reason they purchased a gun.  38% said it was hunting.  Those were certainly not the reasons the founders put the 2nd amendment in the Constitution.  Guns in those days were muskets without a rear sight that were certainly not very useful for hunting or protection.  There only really practical use was in being fired in volleys as in militias.
> 
> Unlike today, the approval of the 2nd amendment was not a news worthy event because most people had little interest in owning guns.  Only 1 in every 5 households owned a musket and few people had any interest in buying one since the cost was 2 weeks to a months pay.  They had no rear sights making them very inaccurate and loading time for most people was 30 seconds to a minute. Thus, a good knife or axe was much better self protection at a fraction of the cost of a musket.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Unlike today, the approval of the 2nd amendment was not a news worthy event because most people had little interest in owning guns. Only 1 in every 5 households owned a musket and few people had any interest in buying one since the cost was 2 weeks to a months pay."
> *
> Source?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Coincidentally, there were no mass school shootings in the 1700's, No assault rifles, either.  Thus proving what an anachronism the 2nd amendment  has become.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Most murders were committed with knives, and -- contrary to the myth of primitive violence -- there were few murders outside Indian warfare (in North Carolina, on the average, there was only one murder every two years between 1663 and 1740).
> 
> There was only one recorded murder using a gun.
> 
> Spiking the Gun Myth*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Most murders are committed by murders, it goes without saying. Knives I use evey day. cooking food, mostly. Knives are variable tools. What the hell do you do with guns? There within lies the question. You kill or train to kill. That's pretty much it. Who needs THAT?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The primary reason people have guns is to kill other people that have guns.  The secondary reason is to kill animals.  It's all about the need kill.*
Click to expand...

 Well, I am good with not killing anything, animals or robbers. Or being killed , either by hoodlums with guns. Take away their guns, and they are just nothing...Taking away their guns, now there within lies the crux of the biscuit. We have maniacs that enable criminals that swear by their holier than thou sacrosanct  2nd Amendment. The Constitution  has been amended before, so what's the big deal now?[/QUOTE]

Just let the criminals do what they want?  And let invasive species of animals wreck the environment?  Or have animals overpopulate due to lack of predation, and then die a slow death from starvation & disease?  All so you can relax with a false sense of safety?


----------



## WinterBorn

MaryL said:


> Imagine we repeal the 2nd amendment. If nobody  had guns, we could relax. No more armed maniacs. We would all be on a even playing field more or less.  Who, in there right mind, would oppose THAT?



Even playing field?   Most men are a good bit stronger than the average woman.  Most 20somethings are stronger than the average senior citizen.  Not very even in my book.


----------



## Flopper

Pogo said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then the 2nd would have ended at the second comma, since it didn’t, it is expressing a right granted beyond the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> the punctuation changes nothing.  you can remove all of it, and it means the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The punctuation means everything. It’s why the 2nd is in The Bill of Rights. Using your logic, the article would not be within the 1st 10 articles at all.
> 
> The 1st 10 outline individual rights, and the 2nd would be so out of place as to be laughable.
> 
> It would be like adding The History of the Ford Mustang within the Old Testament.
> 
> A really bad placement.
> 
> The founding fathers were not dumb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is Your story bro; the punctuation changes No Thing about Second Article of Amendment.  Text is Every Thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Punctuation is important in any legal document because it changes the meaning in one way or another.
> 
> The courts have ruled that in the 2nd amendment the second comma divides the amendment into two clauses: one 'prefatory' and the other 'operative.' The bit about a well-regulated militia is just preliminary throat clearing; the framers don't really get down to business until they start talking about 'the right of the people ... shall not be infringed,..
> 
> However, it is has also been successfully argued in court that the use of commas was far less restrictive in 18th century; that is writers liberally used commas between most all clauses thus the primary two clauses were a conditions for the operative clause, "shall not be infringed...".
> 
> One can argue this point either way but the fact is the 2nd amendment was a compromise between states who favored a strong standing army and states who simple wanted local militias. So just as today, the two sides could read the amendment as favoring their belief.
> 
> Today 60% of gun owners state that protection is the reason they purchased a gun.  38% said it was hunting.  Those were certainly not the reasons the founders put the 2nd amendment in the Constitution.  Guns in those days were muskets without a rear sight that were certainly not very useful for hunting or protection.  There only really practical use was in being fired in volleys as in militias.
> 
> Unlike today, the approval of the 2nd amendment was not a news worthy event because most people had little interest in owning guns.  Only 1 in every 5 households owned a musket and few people had any interest in buying one since the cost was 2 weeks to a months pay.  Most muskets were passed down from father to son and were not well maintained.  In fact, a survey at the time done by a North Carolina militia found that over half were inoperable.   They also had no rear sights making them very inaccurate and loading time for most people was 30 seconds to a minute. Thus, a good knife or axe was much better self protection at a fraction of the cost of a musket.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wouldn't put a whole lot of stock in punctuation from a 200+ year old document, and I'm a proofreader.  Commas were used more or less indiscriminately in that less-linguistically refined period, which also displays the old German practice of capitalizing nouns ("Militia"... Security"... "State"... etc).  Language evolves over time, and the "proper" use of a comma and what it means or doesn't mean wasn't nearly as meticulously defined as it came to be.
> 
> The adjective "prefatory" though, is pure absolute snow-job *bullshit*.  All "prefatory" means is that it "comes before" or "introduces" another part (as in _preface_).  We can already see that it come first, so "prefatory" tells us absolutely nothing of what its _function _is.  And that's an enigma; the introductory phrase "a well regulated Militia being necessary to the Security of a free State" has no discernible reason to exist.  A Constitution has no need to *argue *its case for why it sets out what it does; it simply declares "these are the rules".  There's no point in _rationalizing _the Amendment as if it were part of some debate, nor does any other Amendment do so (nor should it), so the presence of the clause remains a head-scratcher.
> 
> Ultimately the presence of a subordinate clause that seems to want to argue its existence looks like either sloppy or unfinished work, or both.  If it's intended as a limitation, which is the only conceivable direction it would have wanted to go, then it's poorly written as such.
Click to expand...

*To understand why the amendment was written as it was, you have to understand the political climate at the time.  Some of the states were violently opposed to a standing army.  They even passed laws to keep them out of their state.  They believed voluntary militias should be used to defend the country   The 2nd amendment was written to gain the support of those states.  States in favor of militias interpreted the amendment to mean the federal government was guaranteeing that citizens would have right to bear arms so they could serve in the militia.

FYI, the Supreme Court overturned the DC gun control based on the fact that there was second comma in the 2nd amendment. So courts certain pay attention to punctuation because it changes the meaning of the text.   *


----------



## Pop23

Pogo said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then the 2nd would have ended at the second comma, since it didn’t, it is expressing a right granted beyond the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> the punctuation changes nothing.  you can remove all of it, and it means the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The punctuation means everything. It’s why the 2nd is in The Bill of Rights. Using your logic, the article would not be within the 1st 10 articles at all.
> 
> The 1st 10 outline individual rights, and the 2nd would be so out of place as to be laughable.
> 
> It would be like adding The History of the Ford Mustang within the Old Testament.
> 
> A really bad placement.
> 
> The founding fathers were not dumb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is Your story bro; the punctuation changes No Thing about Second Article of Amendment.  Text is Every Thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Punctuation is important in any legal document because it changes the meaning in one way or another.
> 
> The courts have ruled that in the 2nd amendment the second comma divides the amendment into two clauses: one 'prefatory' and the other 'operative.' The bit about a well-regulated militia is just preliminary throat clearing; the framers don't really get down to business until they start talking about 'the right of the people ... shall not be infringed,..
> 
> However, it is has also been successfully argued in court that the use of commas was far less restrictive in 18th century; that is writers liberally used commas between most all clauses thus the primary two clauses were a conditions for the operative clause, "shall not be infringed...".
> 
> One can argue this point either way but the fact is the 2nd amendment was a compromise between states who favored a strong standing army and states who simple wanted local militias. So just as today, the two sides could read the amendment as favoring their belief.
> 
> Today 60% of gun owners state that protection is the reason they purchased a gun.  38% said it was hunting.  Those were certainly not the reasons the founders put the 2nd amendment in the Constitution.  Guns in those days were muskets without a rear sight that were certainly not very useful for hunting or protection.  There only really practical use was in being fired in volleys as in militias.
> 
> Unlike today, the approval of the 2nd amendment was not a news worthy event because most people had little interest in owning guns.  Only 1 in every 5 households owned a musket and few people had any interest in buying one since the cost was 2 weeks to a months pay.  Most muskets were passed down from father to son and were not well maintained.  In fact, a survey at the time done by a North Carolina militia found that over half were inoperable.   They also had no rear sights making them very inaccurate and loading time for most people was 30 seconds to a minute. Thus, a good knife or axe was much better self protection at a fraction of the cost of a musket.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wouldn't put a whole lot of stock in punctuation from a 200+ year old document, and I'm a proofreader.  Commas were used more or less indiscriminately in that less-linguistically refined period, which also displays the old German practice of capitalizing nouns ("Militia"... Security"... "State"... etc).  Language evolves over time, and the "proper" use of a comma and what it means or doesn't mean wasn't nearly as meticulously defined as it came to be.
> 
> The adjective "prefatory" though, is pure absolute snow-job *bullshit*.  All "prefatory" means is that it "comes before" or "introduces" another part (as in _preface_).  We can already see that it come first, so "prefatory" tells us absolutely nothing of what its _function _is.  And that's an enigma; the introductory phrase "a well regulated Militia being necessary to the Security of a free State" has no discernible reason to exist.  A Constitution has no need to *argue *its case for why it sets out what it does; it simply declares "these are the rules".  There's no point in _rationalizing _the Amendment as if it were part of some debate, nor does any other Amendment do so (nor should it), so the presence of the clause remains a head-scratcher.
> 
> Ultimately the presence of a subordinate clause that seems to want to argue its existence looks like either sloppy or unfinished work, or both.  If it's intended as a limitation, which is the only conceivable direction it would have wanted to go, then it's poorly written as such.
Click to expand...


Lol, but that’s not what language experts say. 

Then again, you’re a proof reader, so what the hell would they know?


----------



## Pop23

Pogo said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The punctuation means everything. It’s why the 2nd is in The Bill of Rights. Using your logic, the article would not be within the 1st 10 articles at all.
> 
> The 1st 10 outline individual rights, and the 2nd would be so out of place as to be laughable.
> 
> It would be like adding The History of the Ford Mustang within the Old Testament.
> 
> A really bad placement.
> 
> The founding fathers were not dumb.
> 
> 
> 
> that is Your story bro; the punctuation changes No Thing about Second Article of Amendment.  Text is Every Thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Punctuation is important in any legal document because it changes the meaning in one way or another.
> 
> The courts have ruled that in the 2nd amendment the second comma divides the amendment into two clauses: one 'prefatory' and the other 'operative.' The bit about a well-regulated militia is just preliminary throat clearing; the framers don't really get down to business until they start talking about 'the right of the people ... shall not be infringed,..
> 
> However, it is has also been successfully argued in court that the use of commas was far less restrictive in 18th century; that is writers liberally used commas between most all clauses thus the primary two clauses were a conditions for the operative clause, "shall not be infringed...".
> 
> One can argue this point either way but the fact is the 2nd amendment was a compromise between states who favored a strong standing army and states who simple wanted local militias. So just as today, the two sides could read the amendment as favoring their belief.
> 
> Today 60% of gun owners state that protection is the reason they purchased a gun.  38% said it was hunting.  Those were certainly not the reasons the founders put the 2nd amendment in the Constitution.  Guns in those days were muskets without a rear sight that were certainly not very useful for hunting or protection.  There only really practical use was in being fired in volleys as in militias.
> 
> Unlike today, the approval of the 2nd amendment was not a news worthy event because most people had little interest in owning guns.  Only 1 in every 5 households owned a musket and few people had any interest in buying one since the cost was 2 weeks to a months pay.  Most muskets were passed down from father to son and were not well maintained.  In fact, a survey at the time done by a North Carolina militia found that over half were inoperable.   They also had no rear sights making them very inaccurate and loading time for most people was 30 seconds to a minute. Thus, a good knife or axe was much better self protection at a fraction of the cost of a musket.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wouldn't put a whole lot of stock in punctuation from a 200+ year old document, and I'm a proofreader.  Commas were used more or less indiscriminately in that less-linguistically refined period, which also displays the old German practice of capitalizing nouns ("Militia"... Security"... "State"... etc).  Language evolves over time, and the "proper" use of a comma and what it means or doesn't mean wasn't nearly as meticulously defined as it came to be.
> 
> The adjective "prefatory" though, is pure absolute snow-job *bullshit*.  All "prefatory" means is that it "comes before" or "introduces" another part (as in _preface_).  We can already see that it come first, so "prefatory" tells us absolutely nothing of what its _function _is.  And that's an enigma; the introductory phrase "a well regulated Militia being necessary to the Security of a free State" has no discernible reason to exist.  A Constitution has no need to *argue *its case for why it sets out what it does; it simply declares "these are the rules".  There's no point in _rationalizing _the Amendment as if it were part of some debate, nor does any other Amendment do so (nor should it), so the presence of the clause remains a head-scratcher.
> 
> Ultimately the presence of a subordinate clause that seems to want to argue its existence looks like either sloppy or unfinished work, or both.  If it's intended as a limitation, which is the only conceivable direction it would have wanted to go, then it's poorly written as such.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny.
> 
> The only people who think it's "poorly written" are those who want their misinterpretation accepted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fine -- then why don't you be the first person in the history of this nation, right here on USMB --- to essplain to the class why a Constitution would need to justify itself as if it's posting on a message board.
> 
> C'mon, hook a brutha up.  "Prefatory" won't do it --- we already know WHERE the clause is.  What we want to know is WHY it is.
> 
> As I said, I don't have an 'interpretation'.  As I said, it's an enigma.  Nobody has an interpretation.  Hence --- "poorly written".
> 
> And as long as we're on the subject, a Court explaining it as a "prefatory" clause is also "poorly written".  That's just unmitigated bullshit dancing around a question it can't answer either.
Click to expand...


Then, you beg the question as to why it exists anyway, especially within the section of the document that outlines the rights of individuals. 

Context my good man, context.


----------



## Flopper

Pogo said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution requires no justification.  The Founders wrote it quite clearly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's correct --- a constitution (any constitution) needs no justification.  It is its own justification.  Any argument for or against any part of it, would have been exercised in committee, BEFORE its final language was settled upon.
> 
> So --- that being the case upon which we are agreed ---  what the fuck is the function of this phrase?
> 
> 
> 
> See what I mean about "enigma"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's no enigma.  The militia is bound to the right.  The right is not bound to the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that you can't answer the question, affirms the enigma.
> 
> That's what an enigma is.  It can't be figured out.
> 
> Ergo my point stands --- it's poorly written.  A constitution is no place for riddles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I answered the question.  That the answer eludes your understanding is not surprising.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you did not.  No one can answer it.
> If it could be answered, it wouldn't be an enigma, now would it.
> 
> We already agreed a constitution has no need to argue its case.  Yet here's a subordinate clause appearing to do just that.  Clearly that cannot be its function, as no adversarial argue-party exists to "convince".
> 
> Since that cannot be its function --- what is?
> 
> No one knows.  You don't know.  I don't know.  Don't nobody know.
> But here's what we do know --- when a constitution contains an extraneous clause for no discernible reason, it's "poorly written".  Unless you think that in writing the Constitution the Founders were simply playing word jumble games with us.
Click to expand...

*Now we're talking about how well the constitution is written and were the founders playing word games.   The right to bear arms depends on where the founders put a comma in the 2nd amendment according the courts.   The guys who wrote the constitution had no idea how to run a country and for some strange reason we think they had great insight in how the country should be run over 200 years later.  This is nuts.

The fact is we don't need a constitution as such.  We need a bill of rights that guarantees freedoms and we need laws and rules for running the goverment.   "Our obsession with the Constitution has saddled us with a dysfunctional political system, keeps us from debating the merits of divisive issues, and inflames public discourse. Instead of arguing about what is to be done, we argue about what James Madison might have wanted done 225 years ago.  The whole process is bizarre. *


----------



## peach174

MaryL said:


> I like guns overall, I do. But  WE can do just fine without them too. Anyone  here think their sole survival hinges on firearms ?




Sometimes it does, for those who live near the border of Mexico.
There are many local news stories of people defending themselves against robber's who cross the boarder illegally.


----------



## Pilot1

MaryL said:


> I like guns overall, I do. But  WE can do just fine without them too. Anyone  here think their sole survival hinges on firearms ?



No, I don't live in fear.  Until someone breaks into my house, and tries to harm me, and my family, until then no, my survival does not hinge on firearms.  When that happens it does.  So, when I can predict when that will happen with enough marging to call the police, and guarantee their arrival, then I will give up my firearms.

Also, when governments demonstrate, they can be 100% non corrupt, and benevolent.


----------



## Pop23

MaryL said:


> I like guns overall, I do. But  WE can do just fine without them too. Anyone  here think their sole survival hinges on firearms ?



Doesn't really matter what you think. Lets look at what a survivor of a brutal rape thinks. Her rape likely happened because of do gooders like you taking advantage of the idea that law abiding citizens will obey the law:



> In college eight years ago, I was raped in a parking garage only feet from the campus police office.
> 
> I could see the police cruisers parked for the night as this stranger raped me, pistol to my head. I knew no one was coming to help me.
> 
> I should not have to hand over my safety to a third party. Laws that prohibit campus carry turn women like me into victims.
> At the time of my attack, I had a Nevada concealed carry permit. But in Nevada, permit holders are not allowed to carry firearms on campuses. As someone who obeys the law, I left my firearm at home when I went to school. The law that was meant to safeguard me – the gun-free zone – only guaranteed I would be defenseless.
> 
> Eventually the man was caught, tried and convicted – not just for using a gun in gun-free zone, but also for raping two other women and murdering one. My attacker was not a student, nor did he have a concealed-carry weapon permit.
> 
> I still wonder what would have been different if I’d had my weapon that night. But here’s the truth: I feel certain that I would have been able to stop the attack. Not only that, but two other rapes would have been prevented and three young lives would have been saved, including my own.



Source: Why I Would Have Liked to Have My Weapon With Me in College - NYTimes.com


----------



## Pogo

Pop23 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> the punctuation changes nothing.  you can remove all of it, and it means the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The punctuation means everything. It’s why the 2nd is in The Bill of Rights. Using your logic, the article would not be within the 1st 10 articles at all.
> 
> The 1st 10 outline individual rights, and the 2nd would be so out of place as to be laughable.
> 
> It would be like adding The History of the Ford Mustang within the Old Testament.
> 
> A really bad placement.
> 
> The founding fathers were not dumb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is Your story bro; the punctuation changes No Thing about Second Article of Amendment.  Text is Every Thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Punctuation is important in any legal document because it changes the meaning in one way or another.
> 
> The courts have ruled that in the 2nd amendment the second comma divides the amendment into two clauses: one 'prefatory' and the other 'operative.' The bit about a well-regulated militia is just preliminary throat clearing; the framers don't really get down to business until they start talking about 'the right of the people ... shall not be infringed,..
> 
> However, it is has also been successfully argued in court that the use of commas was far less restrictive in 18th century; that is writers liberally used commas between most all clauses thus the primary two clauses were a conditions for the operative clause, "shall not be infringed...".
> 
> One can argue this point either way but the fact is the 2nd amendment was a compromise between states who favored a strong standing army and states who simple wanted local militias. So just as today, the two sides could read the amendment as favoring their belief.
> 
> Today 60% of gun owners state that protection is the reason they purchased a gun.  38% said it was hunting.  Those were certainly not the reasons the founders put the 2nd amendment in the Constitution.  Guns in those days were muskets without a rear sight that were certainly not very useful for hunting or protection.  There only really practical use was in being fired in volleys as in militias.
> 
> Unlike today, the approval of the 2nd amendment was not a news worthy event because most people had little interest in owning guns.  Only 1 in every 5 households owned a musket and few people had any interest in buying one since the cost was 2 weeks to a months pay.  Most muskets were passed down from father to son and were not well maintained.  In fact, a survey at the time done by a North Carolina militia found that over half were inoperable.   They also had no rear sights making them very inaccurate and loading time for most people was 30 seconds to a minute. Thus, a good knife or axe was much better self protection at a fraction of the cost of a musket.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wouldn't put a whole lot of stock in punctuation from a 200+ year old document, and I'm a proofreader.  Commas were used more or less indiscriminately in that less-linguistically refined period, which also displays the old German practice of capitalizing nouns ("Militia"... Security"... "State"... etc).  Language evolves over time, and the "proper" use of a comma and what it means or doesn't mean wasn't nearly as meticulously defined as it came to be.
> 
> The adjective "prefatory" though, is pure absolute snow-job *bullshit*.  All "prefatory" means is that it "comes before" or "introduces" another part (as in _preface_).  We can already see that it come first, so "prefatory" tells us absolutely nothing of what its _function _is.  And that's an enigma; the introductory phrase "a well regulated Militia being necessary to the Security of a free State" has no discernible reason to exist.  A Constitution has no need to *argue *its case for why it sets out what it does; it simply declares "these are the rules".  There's no point in _rationalizing _the Amendment as if it were part of some debate, nor does any other Amendment do so (nor should it), so the presence of the clause remains a head-scratcher.
> 
> Ultimately the presence of a subordinate clause that seems to want to argue its existence looks like either sloppy or unfinished work, or both.  If it's intended as a limitation, which is the only conceivable direction it would have wanted to go, then it's poorly written as such.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol, but that’s not what language experts say.
> 
> Then again, you’re a proof reader, so what the hell would they know?
Click to expand...


Exactly, thank you.

And what "language experts" might these be?  Poopdip-boi?


----------



## Pogo

Flopper said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's correct --- a constitution (any constitution) needs no justification.  It is its own justification.  Any argument for or against any part of it, would have been exercised in committee, BEFORE its final language was settled upon.
> 
> So --- that being the case upon which we are agreed ---  what the fuck is the function of this phrase?
> 
> 
> 
> See what I mean about "enigma"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's no enigma.  The militia is bound to the right.  The right is not bound to the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that you can't answer the question, affirms the enigma.
> 
> That's what an enigma is.  It can't be figured out.
> 
> Ergo my point stands --- it's poorly written.  A constitution is no place for riddles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I answered the question.  That the answer eludes your understanding is not surprising.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you did not.  No one can answer it.
> If it could be answered, it wouldn't be an enigma, now would it.
> 
> We already agreed a constitution has no need to argue its case.  Yet here's a subordinate clause appearing to do just that.  Clearly that cannot be its function, as no adversarial argue-party exists to "convince".
> 
> Since that cannot be its function --- what is?
> 
> No one knows.  You don't know.  I don't know.  Don't nobody know.
> But here's what we do know --- when a constitution contains an extraneous clause for no discernible reason, it's "poorly written".  Unless you think that in writing the Constitution the Founders were simply playing word jumble games with us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now we're talking about how well the constitution is written and were the founders playing word games.   The right to bear arms depends on where the founders put a comma in the 2nd amendment according the courts.   The guys who wrote the constitution had no idea how to run a country and for some strange reason we think they had great insight in how the country should be run over 200 years later.  This is nuts.
> 
> The fact is we don't need a constitution as such.  We need a bill of rights that guarantees freedoms and we need laws and rules for running the goverment.   "Our obsession with the Constitution has saddled us with a dysfunctional political system, keeps us from debating the merits of divisive issues, and inflames public discourse. Instead of arguing about what is to be done, we argue about what James Madison might have wanted done 225 years ago.  The whole process is bizarre.
Click to expand...


I don't believe the Founders were playing word games.  That's my sarcastic rejoinder to Billy Klownetta who tries to tell me that clause makes sense yet can't tell us how it does.

Again the commas, are irrelevant (see what I just did there?) -- commas in the 1780s simply were not used as strictly, as they are now (just did it again).  They were commonly used to set off one long dangling phrase so that it was less likely for the reader to clash with the next phrase.  Besides which, if we apply contemporary comma use to that document it doesn't make sense as there are superfluous ones --- which demonstrates again that they were indeed used indiscriminately.

To wit:
"A well regulated Militia*,* being necessary..." << there's no function for that comma other than to "take a breath" which is entirely optional.  If you or I wrote that phrase now we would not do so with a comma.

The main point here was the superfluous clause, which seems to somehow want to offer a _premise for its reasoning_.  There's no reason in the world for a constitution to do that, and nowhere else does it happen (we don't read "_a well informed Public being necessary to the Exercise of a free Democracy, _Congress shall make no Law abridging Freedom of the Press..." --- it simply dives in with "Congress shall make no Law", period).  As it should --- It has no need to explain "why".  Thus the 2A as finalized looks unfinalized.  And/or sloppy work.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> that is Your story bro; the punctuation changes No Thing about Second Article of Amendment.  Text is Every Thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Punctuation means everything.
> 
> "Hey, let's eat, Dad!"       "Hey, let's eat Dad!"
> Are you claiming those two sentences mean the same thing?
> 
> And calling something a collective right while refusing to explain why speaks volumes where your argument is concerned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> special pleading much?  now, try it with our Second Amendment.  story telling, right wingers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just calling something a logical fallacy does not make it one.  My example on punctuation is accurate.   And you never have explained your reasoning for insisting the 2nd is a collective right.   Which is not surprising, since every constitutional scholar has argued it is an individual right.  Even the ones that don't like it agree that it is an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just another story, right wingers.  all political talk and no political action.
> 
> put it in writing, right wingers, like the left is willing to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMAO!!!!    Oh that is hilarious!!!    YOu have the gall to post that after continually refusing to answer questions??   On virtually ANY topic?
> 
> That is a joke.   They DID put it in writing.  And those who understand english, understand that the 2nd amendment is an individual right.
> 
> YOu can call it judicial activism all you want.  It is the law of the land.
Click to expand...


Proof, the right wing is simply clueless and Causeless, and has to make up stories.


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.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

Pogo said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no enigma.  The militia is bound to the right.  The right is not bound to the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you can't answer the question, affirms the enigma.
> 
> That's what an enigma is.  It can't be figured out.
> 
> Ergo my point stands --- it's poorly written.  A constitution is no place for riddles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I answered the question.  That the answer eludes your understanding is not surprising.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you did not.  No one can answer it.
> If it could be answered, it wouldn't be an enigma, now would it.
> 
> We already agreed a constitution has no need to argue its case.  Yet here's a subordinate clause appearing to do just that.  Clearly that cannot be its function, as no adversarial argue-party exists to "convince".
> 
> Since that cannot be its function --- what is?
> 
> No one knows.  You don't know.  I don't know.  Don't nobody know.
> But here's what we do know --- when a constitution contains an extraneous clause for no discernible reason, it's "poorly written".  Unless you think that in writing the Constitution the Founders were simply playing word jumble games with us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now we're talking about how well the constitution is written and were the founders playing word games.   The right to bear arms depends on where the founders put a comma in the 2nd amendment according the courts.   The guys who wrote the constitution had no idea how to run a country and for some strange reason we think they had great insight in how the country should be run over 200 years later.  This is nuts.
> 
> The fact is we don't need a constitution as such.  We need a bill of rights that guarantees freedoms and we need laws and rules for running the goverment.   "Our obsession with the Constitution has saddled us with a dysfunctional political system, keeps us from debating the merits of divisive issues, and inflames public discourse. Instead of arguing about what is to be done, we argue about what James Madison might have wanted done 225 years ago.  The whole process is bizarre.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe the Founders were playing word games.  That's my sarcastic rejoinder to Billy Klownetta who tries to tell me that clause makes sense yet can't make sense of it.
Click to expand...


That it does not make sense to you is of absolutely no consequence.  It's made sense to all Americans for nearly 250 years despite the ill-fated mid-20th Century attempt to reinterpret it in favor of increasing government authority over the issue.  It continues to make sense today with the recent reiteration of the original meaning by the SCOTUS in the Heller ruling.


----------



## danielpalos

Flopper said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> the punctuation changes nothing.  you can remove all of it, and it means the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The punctuation means everything. It’s why the 2nd is in The Bill of Rights. Using your logic, the article would not be within the 1st 10 articles at all.
> 
> The 1st 10 outline individual rights, and the 2nd would be so out of place as to be laughable.
> 
> It would be like adding The History of the Ford Mustang within the Old Testament.
> 
> A really bad placement.
> 
> The founding fathers were not dumb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is Your story bro; the punctuation changes No Thing about Second Article of Amendment.  Text is Every Thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Punctuation is important in any legal document because it changes the meaning in one way or another.
> 
> The courts have ruled that in the 2nd amendment the second comma divides the amendment into two clauses: one 'prefatory' and the other 'operative.' The bit about a well-regulated militia is just preliminary throat clearing; the framers don't really get down to business until they start talking about 'the right of the people ... shall not be infringed,..
> 
> However, it is has also been successfully argued in court that the use of commas was far less restrictive in 18th century; that is writers liberally used commas between most all clauses thus the primary two clauses were a conditions for the operative clause, "shall not be infringed...".
> 
> One can argue this point either way but the fact is the 2nd amendment was a compromise between states who favored a strong standing army and states who simple wanted local militias. So just as today, the two sides could read the amendment as favoring their belief.
> 
> Today 60% of gun owners state that protection is the reason they purchased a gun.  38% said it was hunting.  Those were certainly not the reasons the founders put the 2nd amendment in the Constitution.  Guns in those days were muskets without a rear sight that were certainly not very useful for hunting or protection.  There only really practical use was in being fired in volleys as in militias.
> 
> Unlike today, the approval of the 2nd amendment was not a news worthy event because most people had little interest in owning guns.  Only 1 in every 5 households owned a musket and few people had any interest in buying one since the cost was 2 weeks to a months pay.  Most muskets were passed down from father to son and were not well maintained.  In fact, a survey at the time done by a North Carolina militia found that over half were inoperable.   They also had no rear sights making them very inaccurate and loading time for most people was 30 seconds to a minute. Thus, a good knife or axe was much better self protection at a fraction of the cost of a musket.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wouldn't put a whole lot of stock in punctuation from a 200+ year old document, and I'm a proofreader.  Commas were used more or less indiscriminately in that less-linguistically refined period, which also displays the old German practice of capitalizing nouns ("Militia"... Security"... "State"... etc).  Language evolves over time, and the "proper" use of a comma and what it means or doesn't mean wasn't nearly as meticulously defined as it came to be.
> 
> The adjective "prefatory" though, is pure absolute snow-job *bullshit*.  All "prefatory" means is that it "comes before" or "introduces" another part (as in _preface_).  We can already see that it come first, so "prefatory" tells us absolutely nothing of what its _function _is.  And that's an enigma; the introductory phrase "a well regulated Militia being necessary to the Security of a free State" has no discernible reason to exist.  A Constitution has no need to *argue *its case for why it sets out what it does; it simply declares "these are the rules".  There's no point in _rationalizing _the Amendment as if it were part of some debate, nor does any other Amendment do so (nor should it), so the presence of the clause remains a head-scratcher.
> 
> Ultimately the presence of a subordinate clause that seems to want to argue its existence looks like either sloppy or unfinished work, or both.  If it's intended as a limitation, which is the only conceivable direction it would have wanted to go, then it's poorly written as such.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *To understand why the amendment was written as it was, you have to understand the political climate at the time.  Some of the states were violently opposed to a standing army.  They even passed laws to keep them out of their state.  They believed voluntary militias should be used to defend the country   The 2nd amendment was written to gain the support of those states.  States in favor of militias interpreted the amendment to mean the federal government was guaranteeing that citizens would have right to bear arms so they could serve in the militia.
> 
> FYI, the Supreme Court overturned the DC gun control based on the fact that there was second comma in the 2nd amendment. So courts certain pay attention to punctuation because it changes the meaning of the text.   *
Click to expand...

Not in the case of our Second Amendment; there is no change in context, theme, or any Thing.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Punctuation means everything.
> 
> "Hey, let's eat, Dad!"       "Hey, let's eat Dad!"
> Are you claiming those two sentences mean the same thing?
> 
> And calling something a collective right while refusing to explain why speaks volumes where your argument is concerned.
> 
> 
> 
> special pleading much?  now, try it with our Second Amendment.  story telling, right wingers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just calling something a logical fallacy does not make it one.  My example on punctuation is accurate.   And you never have explained your reasoning for insisting the 2nd is a collective right.   Which is not surprising, since every constitutional scholar has argued it is an individual right.  Even the ones that don't like it agree that it is an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just another story, right wingers.  all political talk and no political action.
> 
> put it in writing, right wingers, like the left is willing to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMAO!!!!    Oh that is hilarious!!!    YOu have the gall to post that after continually refusing to answer questions??   On virtually ANY topic?
> 
> That is a joke.   They DID put it in writing.  And those who understand english, understand that the 2nd amendment is an individual right.
> 
> YOu can call it judicial activism all you want.  It is the law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Proof, the right wing is simply clueless and Causeless, and has to make up stories.
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


And your posts are proof you cannot answer direct questions.

And the 2nd actually reads "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."

Feel free to keep pretending that punctuation does not matter and that judicial activism is the reason the 2nd Amendment is known as an individual right.   It doesn't matter.  It is still an individual right under the laws of the land.


----------



## Pogo

Pop23 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> that is Your story bro; the punctuation changes No Thing about Second Article of Amendment.  Text is Every Thing.
> 
> 
> 
> *Punctuation is important in any legal document because it changes the meaning in one way or another.
> 
> The courts have ruled that in the 2nd amendment the second comma divides the amendment into two clauses: one 'prefatory' and the other 'operative.' The bit about a well-regulated militia is just preliminary throat clearing; the framers don't really get down to business until they start talking about 'the right of the people ... shall not be infringed,..
> 
> However, it is has also been successfully argued in court that the use of commas was far less restrictive in 18th century; that is writers liberally used commas between most all clauses thus the primary two clauses were a conditions for the operative clause, "shall not be infringed...".
> 
> One can argue this point either way but the fact is the 2nd amendment was a compromise between states who favored a strong standing army and states who simple wanted local militias. So just as today, the two sides could read the amendment as favoring their belief.
> 
> Today 60% of gun owners state that protection is the reason they purchased a gun.  38% said it was hunting.  Those were certainly not the reasons the founders put the 2nd amendment in the Constitution.  Guns in those days were muskets without a rear sight that were certainly not very useful for hunting or protection.  There only really practical use was in being fired in volleys as in militias.
> 
> Unlike today, the approval of the 2nd amendment was not a news worthy event because most people had little interest in owning guns.  Only 1 in every 5 households owned a musket and few people had any interest in buying one since the cost was 2 weeks to a months pay.  Most muskets were passed down from father to son and were not well maintained.  In fact, a survey at the time done by a North Carolina militia found that over half were inoperable.   They also had no rear sights making them very inaccurate and loading time for most people was 30 seconds to a minute. Thus, a good knife or axe was much better self protection at a fraction of the cost of a musket.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wouldn't put a whole lot of stock in punctuation from a 200+ year old document, and I'm a proofreader.  Commas were used more or less indiscriminately in that less-linguistically refined period, which also displays the old German practice of capitalizing nouns ("Militia"... Security"... "State"... etc).  Language evolves over time, and the "proper" use of a comma and what it means or doesn't mean wasn't nearly as meticulously defined as it came to be.
> 
> The adjective "prefatory" though, is pure absolute snow-job *bullshit*.  All "prefatory" means is that it "comes before" or "introduces" another part (as in _preface_).  We can already see that it come first, so "prefatory" tells us absolutely nothing of what its _function _is.  And that's an enigma; the introductory phrase "a well regulated Militia being necessary to the Security of a free State" has no discernible reason to exist.  A Constitution has no need to *argue *its case for why it sets out what it does; it simply declares "these are the rules".  There's no point in _rationalizing _the Amendment as if it were part of some debate, nor does any other Amendment do so (nor should it), so the presence of the clause remains a head-scratcher.
> 
> Ultimately the presence of a subordinate clause that seems to want to argue its existence looks like either sloppy or unfinished work, or both.  If it's intended as a limitation, which is the only conceivable direction it would have wanted to go, then it's poorly written as such.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny.
> 
> The only people who think it's "poorly written" are those who want their misinterpretation accepted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fine -- then why don't you be the first person in the history of this nation, right here on USMB --- to essplain to the class why a Constitution would need to justify itself as if it's posting on a message board.
> 
> C'mon, hook a brutha up.  "Prefatory" won't do it --- we already know WHERE the clause is.  What we want to know is WHY it is.
> 
> As I said, I don't have an 'interpretation'.  As I said, it's an enigma.  Nobody has an interpretation.  Hence --- "poorly written".
> 
> And as long as we're on the subject, a Court explaining it as a "prefatory" clause is also "poorly written".  That's just unmitigated bullshit dancing around a question it can't answer either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then, you beg the question as to why it exists anyway, especially within the section of the document that outlines the rights of individuals.
> 
> Context my good man, context.
Click to expand...


"Why it exists" is indeed the question.  The context is a constitution, which is the framework for how the operation is going to run.  That makes it a simple declaration with no need whatsoever of appealing its arguments.  It has no need at all to "explain why".

When you sit down to write a constitution, you sweat over every word, since you expect it to be taken seriously by generations.  Therefore no part of what we read can be there by accident.  Many sets of eyes read it and revised it before it got signed.  Therefore it's intentional.  But that lands us in the riddle --- if it's intentional, what then is its function?  No one knows.  It seems to set a _qualification _for the point it eventually gets to.  What is its status in the event that qualification is not met?  We do not know, for we are not told.

Enigma.


----------



## danielpalos

Pop23 said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like guns overall, I do. But  WE can do just fine without them too. Anyone  here think their sole survival hinges on firearms ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't really matter what you think. Lets look at what a survivor of a brutal rape thinks. Her rape likely happened because of do gooders like you taking advantage of the idea that law abiding citizens will obey the law:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In college eight years ago, I was raped in a parking garage only feet from the campus police office.
> 
> I could see the police cruisers parked for the night as this stranger raped me, pistol to my head. I knew no one was coming to help me.
> 
> I should not have to hand over my safety to a third party. Laws that prohibit campus carry turn women like me into victims.
> At the time of my attack, I had a Nevada concealed carry permit. But in Nevada, permit holders are not allowed to carry firearms on campuses. As someone who obeys the law, I left my firearm at home when I went to school. The law that was meant to safeguard me – the gun-free zone – only guaranteed I would be defenseless.
> 
> Eventually the man was caught, tried and convicted – not just for using a gun in gun-free zone, but also for raping two other women and murdering one. My attacker was not a student, nor did he have a concealed-carry weapon permit.
> 
> I still wonder what would have been different if I’d had my weapon that night. But here’s the truth: I feel certain that I would have been able to stop the attack. Not only that, but two other rapes would have been prevented and three young lives would have been saved, including my own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Source: Why I Would Have Liked to Have My Weapon With Me in College - NYTimes.com
Click to expand...

this is speculation; the other girl probably thought the same thing; and now he has her gun as well.


----------



## danielpalos

Billy_Kinetta said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you can't answer the question, affirms the enigma.
> 
> That's what an enigma is.  It can't be figured out.
> 
> Ergo my point stands --- it's poorly written.  A constitution is no place for riddles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I answered the question.  That the answer eludes your understanding is not surprising.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you did not.  No one can answer it.
> If it could be answered, it wouldn't be an enigma, now would it.
> 
> We already agreed a constitution has no need to argue its case.  Yet here's a subordinate clause appearing to do just that.  Clearly that cannot be its function, as no adversarial argue-party exists to "convince".
> 
> Since that cannot be its function --- what is?
> 
> No one knows.  You don't know.  I don't know.  Don't nobody know.
> But here's what we do know --- when a constitution contains an extraneous clause for no discernible reason, it's "poorly written".  Unless you think that in writing the Constitution the Founders were simply playing word jumble games with us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now we're talking about how well the constitution is written and were the founders playing word games.   The right to bear arms depends on where the founders put a comma in the 2nd amendment according the courts.   The guys who wrote the constitution had no idea how to run a country and for some strange reason we think they had great insight in how the country should be run over 200 years later.  This is nuts.
> 
> The fact is we don't need a constitution as such.  We need a bill of rights that guarantees freedoms and we need laws and rules for running the goverment.   "Our obsession with the Constitution has saddled us with a dysfunctional political system, keeps us from debating the merits of divisive issues, and inflames public discourse. Instead of arguing about what is to be done, we argue about what James Madison might have wanted done 225 years ago.  The whole process is bizarre.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe the Founders were playing word games.  That's my sarcastic rejoinder to Billy Klownetta who tries to tell me that clause makes sense yet can't make sense of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That it does not make sense to you is of absolutely no consequence.  It's made sense to all Americans for nearly 250 years despite the ill-fated mid-20th Century attempt to reinterpret it in favor of increasing government authority over the issue.  It continues to make sense today with the recent reiteration of the original meaning by the SCOTUS in the Heller ruling.
Click to expand...

Only Congress can write words on formerly blank pieces of paper and have them enacted as law, in our Republic.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

danielpalos said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> I answered the question.  That the answer eludes your understanding is not surprising.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you did not.  No one can answer it.
> If it could be answered, it wouldn't be an enigma, now would it.
> 
> We already agreed a constitution has no need to argue its case.  Yet here's a subordinate clause appearing to do just that.  Clearly that cannot be its function, as no adversarial argue-party exists to "convince".
> 
> Since that cannot be its function --- what is?
> 
> No one knows.  You don't know.  I don't know.  Don't nobody know.
> But here's what we do know --- when a constitution contains an extraneous clause for no discernible reason, it's "poorly written".  Unless you think that in writing the Constitution the Founders were simply playing word jumble games with us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now we're talking about how well the constitution is written and were the founders playing word games.   The right to bear arms depends on where the founders put a comma in the 2nd amendment according the courts.   The guys who wrote the constitution had no idea how to run a country and for some strange reason we think they had great insight in how the country should be run over 200 years later.  This is nuts.
> 
> The fact is we don't need a constitution as such.  We need a bill of rights that guarantees freedoms and we need laws and rules for running the goverment.   "Our obsession with the Constitution has saddled us with a dysfunctional political system, keeps us from debating the merits of divisive issues, and inflames public discourse. Instead of arguing about what is to be done, we argue about what James Madison might have wanted done 225 years ago.  The whole process is bizarre.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe the Founders were playing word games.  That's my sarcastic rejoinder to Billy Klownetta who tries to tell me that clause makes sense yet can't make sense of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That it does not make sense to you is of absolutely no consequence.  It's made sense to all Americans for nearly 250 years despite the ill-fated mid-20th Century attempt to reinterpret it in favor of increasing government authority over the issue.  It continues to make sense today with the recent reiteration of the original meaning by the SCOTUS in the Heller ruling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only Congress can write words on formerly blank pieces of paper and have them enacted as law, in our Republic.
Click to expand...


Please make sense so that I can respond.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> special pleading much?  now, try it with our Second Amendment.  story telling, right wingers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just calling something a logical fallacy does not make it one.  My example on punctuation is accurate.   And you never have explained your reasoning for insisting the 2nd is a collective right.   Which is not surprising, since every constitutional scholar has argued it is an individual right.  Even the ones that don't like it agree that it is an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just another story, right wingers.  all political talk and no political action.
> 
> put it in writing, right wingers, like the left is willing to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMAO!!!!    Oh that is hilarious!!!    YOu have the gall to post that after continually refusing to answer questions??   On virtually ANY topic?
> 
> That is a joke.   They DID put it in writing.  And those who understand english, understand that the 2nd amendment is an individual right.
> 
> YOu can call it judicial activism all you want.  It is the law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Proof, the right wing is simply clueless and Causeless, and has to make up stories.
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your posts are proof you cannot answer direct questions.
> 
> And the 2nd actually reads "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."
> 
> Feel free to keep pretending that punctuation does not matter and that judicial activism is the reason the 2nd Amendment is known as an individual right.   It doesn't matter.  It is still an individual right under the laws of the land.
Click to expand...

I don't have to pretend; i wrote it down, not just tell you a story about it.


----------



## Pop23

danielpalos said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like guns overall, I do. But  WE can do just fine without them too. Anyone  here think their sole survival hinges on firearms ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't really matter what you think. Lets look at what a survivor of a brutal rape thinks. Her rape likely happened because of do gooders like you taking advantage of the idea that law abiding citizens will obey the law:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In college eight years ago, I was raped in a parking garage only feet from the campus police office.
> 
> I could see the police cruisers parked for the night as this stranger raped me, pistol to my head. I knew no one was coming to help me.
> 
> I should not have to hand over my safety to a third party. Laws that prohibit campus carry turn women like me into victims.
> At the time of my attack, I had a Nevada concealed carry permit. But in Nevada, permit holders are not allowed to carry firearms on campuses. As someone who obeys the law, I left my firearm at home when I went to school. The law that was meant to safeguard me – the gun-free zone – only guaranteed I would be defenseless.
> 
> Eventually the man was caught, tried and convicted – not just for using a gun in gun-free zone, but also for raping two other women and murdering one. My attacker was not a student, nor did he have a concealed-carry weapon permit.
> 
> I still wonder what would have been different if I’d had my weapon that night. But here’s the truth: I feel certain that I would have been able to stop the attack. Not only that, but two other rapes would have been prevented and three young lives would have been saved, including my own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Source: Why I Would Have Liked to Have My Weapon With Me in College - NYTimes.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> this is speculation; the other girl probably thought the same thing; and now he has her gun as well.
Click to expand...


Did I say it wasn't speculation? It must be speculative as outcomes of "what if's" always are, but to speculate as to one outcome is just as relavent in a discussion as the next. However; it is the VICTIMS perspective that take precedent over the arm chair quarterback.


----------



## danielpalos

Billy_Kinetta said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you did not.  No one can answer it.
> If it could be answered, it wouldn't be an enigma, now would it.
> 
> We already agreed a constitution has no need to argue its case.  Yet here's a subordinate clause appearing to do just that.  Clearly that cannot be its function, as no adversarial argue-party exists to "convince".
> 
> Since that cannot be its function --- what is?
> 
> No one knows.  You don't know.  I don't know.  Don't nobody know.
> But here's what we do know --- when a constitution contains an extraneous clause for no discernible reason, it's "poorly written".  Unless you think that in writing the Constitution the Founders were simply playing word jumble games with us.
> 
> 
> 
> Now we're talking about how well the constitution is written and were the founders playing word games.   The right to bear arms depends on where the founders put a comma in the 2nd amendment according the courts.   The guys who wrote the constitution had no idea how to run a country and for some strange reason we think they had great insight in how the country should be run over 200 years later.  This is nuts.
> 
> The fact is we don't need a constitution as such.  We need a bill of rights that guarantees freedoms and we need laws and rules for running the goverment.   "Our obsession with the Constitution has saddled us with a dysfunctional political system, keeps us from debating the merits of divisive issues, and inflames public discourse. Instead of arguing about what is to be done, we argue about what James Madison might have wanted done 225 years ago.  The whole process is bizarre.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe the Founders were playing word games.  That's my sarcastic rejoinder to Billy Klownetta who tries to tell me that clause makes sense yet can't make sense of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That it does not make sense to you is of absolutely no consequence.  It's made sense to all Americans for nearly 250 years despite the ill-fated mid-20th Century attempt to reinterpret it in favor of increasing government authority over the issue.  It continues to make sense today with the recent reiteration of the original meaning by the SCOTUS in the Heller ruling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only Congress can write words on formerly blank pieces of paper and have them enacted as law, in our Republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please make sense so that I can respond.
Click to expand...

Usually, Only the right wing is this, clueless and this Causeless.  

And, why nobody on the left, should Ever take them seriously about Civics.


----------



## danielpalos

Pop23 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like guns overall, I do. But  WE can do just fine without them too. Anyone  here think their sole survival hinges on firearms ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't really matter what you think. Lets look at what a survivor of a brutal rape thinks. Her rape likely happened because of do gooders like you taking advantage of the idea that law abiding citizens will obey the law:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In college eight years ago, I was raped in a parking garage only feet from the campus police office.
> 
> I could see the police cruisers parked for the night as this stranger raped me, pistol to my head. I knew no one was coming to help me.
> 
> I should not have to hand over my safety to a third party. Laws that prohibit campus carry turn women like me into victims.
> At the time of my attack, I had a Nevada concealed carry permit. But in Nevada, permit holders are not allowed to carry firearms on campuses. As someone who obeys the law, I left my firearm at home when I went to school. The law that was meant to safeguard me – the gun-free zone – only guaranteed I would be defenseless.
> 
> Eventually the man was caught, tried and convicted – not just for using a gun in gun-free zone, but also for raping two other women and murdering one. My attacker was not a student, nor did he have a concealed-carry weapon permit.
> 
> I still wonder what would have been different if I’d had my weapon that night. But here’s the truth: I feel certain that I would have been able to stop the attack. Not only that, but two other rapes would have been prevented and three young lives would have been saved, including my own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Source: Why I Would Have Liked to Have My Weapon With Me in College - NYTimes.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> this is speculation; the other girl probably thought the same thing; and now he has her gun as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did I say it wasn't speculation? It must be speculative as outcomes of "what if's" always are, but to speculate as to one outcome is just as relavent in a discussion as the next. However; it is the VICTIMS perspective that take precedent over the arm chair quarterback.
Click to expand...

speculation of what the _victim_, thought she may be able to do, with a gun.


----------



## Pogo

WinterBorn said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The primary reason people have guns is to kill other people that have guns.  The secondary reason is to kill animals.  It's all about the need kill.*
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I am good with not killing anything, animals or robbers. Or being killed , either by hoodlums with guns. Take away their guns, and they are just nothing...Taking away their guns, now there within lies the crux of the biscuit. We have maniacs that enable criminals that swear by their holier than thou sacrosanct  2nd Amendment. The Constitution  has been amended before, so what's the big deal now?
> 
> Just let the criminals do what they want?  And let invasive species of animals wreck the environment?  Or have animals overpopulate due to lack of predation, and then die a slow death from starvation & disease?  All so you can relax with a false sense of safety?
Click to expand...


I believe what Mary's articulating there is the philosophy of _Ahimsa_.  To which I subscribe as well.  That goes all the way back to how one views one's world -- as a comprehensive Universe of which one is a humble and harmonious part,or as a lethal struggle one must continually fend off and vanquish.


----------



## Pop23

Pogo said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Punctuation is important in any legal document because it changes the meaning in one way or another.
> 
> The courts have ruled that in the 2nd amendment the second comma divides the amendment into two clauses: one 'prefatory' and the other 'operative.' The bit about a well-regulated militia is just preliminary throat clearing; the framers don't really get down to business until they start talking about 'the right of the people ... shall not be infringed,..
> 
> However, it is has also been successfully argued in court that the use of commas was far less restrictive in 18th century; that is writers liberally used commas between most all clauses thus the primary two clauses were a conditions for the operative clause, "shall not be infringed...".
> 
> One can argue this point either way but the fact is the 2nd amendment was a compromise between states who favored a strong standing army and states who simple wanted local militias. So just as today, the two sides could read the amendment as favoring their belief.
> 
> Today 60% of gun owners state that protection is the reason they purchased a gun.  38% said it was hunting.  Those were certainly not the reasons the founders put the 2nd amendment in the Constitution.  Guns in those days were muskets without a rear sight that were certainly not very useful for hunting or protection.  There only really practical use was in being fired in volleys as in militias.
> 
> Unlike today, the approval of the 2nd amendment was not a news worthy event because most people had little interest in owning guns.  Only 1 in every 5 households owned a musket and few people had any interest in buying one since the cost was 2 weeks to a months pay.  Most muskets were passed down from father to son and were not well maintained.  In fact, a survey at the time done by a North Carolina militia found that over half were inoperable.   They also had no rear sights making them very inaccurate and loading time for most people was 30 seconds to a minute. Thus, a good knife or axe was much better self protection at a fraction of the cost of a musket.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't put a whole lot of stock in punctuation from a 200+ year old document, and I'm a proofreader.  Commas were used more or less indiscriminately in that less-linguistically refined period, which also displays the old German practice of capitalizing nouns ("Militia"... Security"... "State"... etc).  Language evolves over time, and the "proper" use of a comma and what it means or doesn't mean wasn't nearly as meticulously defined as it came to be.
> 
> The adjective "prefatory" though, is pure absolute snow-job *bullshit*.  All "prefatory" means is that it "comes before" or "introduces" another part (as in _preface_).  We can already see that it come first, so "prefatory" tells us absolutely nothing of what its _function _is.  And that's an enigma; the introductory phrase "a well regulated Militia being necessary to the Security of a free State" has no discernible reason to exist.  A Constitution has no need to *argue *its case for why it sets out what it does; it simply declares "these are the rules".  There's no point in _rationalizing _the Amendment as if it were part of some debate, nor does any other Amendment do so (nor should it), so the presence of the clause remains a head-scratcher.
> 
> Ultimately the presence of a subordinate clause that seems to want to argue its existence looks like either sloppy or unfinished work, or both.  If it's intended as a limitation, which is the only conceivable direction it would have wanted to go, then it's poorly written as such.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny.
> 
> The only people who think it's "poorly written" are those who want their misinterpretation accepted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fine -- then why don't you be the first person in the history of this nation, right here on USMB --- to essplain to the class why a Constitution would need to justify itself as if it's posting on a message board.
> 
> C'mon, hook a brutha up.  "Prefatory" won't do it --- we already know WHERE the clause is.  What we want to know is WHY it is.
> 
> As I said, I don't have an 'interpretation'.  As I said, it's an enigma.  Nobody has an interpretation.  Hence --- "poorly written".
> 
> And as long as we're on the subject, a Court explaining it as a "prefatory" clause is also "poorly written".  That's just unmitigated bullshit dancing around a question it can't answer either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then, you beg the question as to why it exists anyway, especially within the section of the document that outlines the rights of individuals.
> 
> Context my good man, context.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Why it exists" is indeed the question.  The context is a constitution, which is the framework for how the operation is going to run.  That makes it a simple declaration with no need whatsoever of appealing its arguments.  It has no need at all to "explain why".
> 
> When you sit down to write a constitution, you sweat over every word, since you expect it to be taken seriously by generations.  Therefore no part of what we read can be there by accident.  Many sets of eyes read it and revised it before it got signed.  Therefore it's intentional.  But that lands us in the riddle --- if it's intentional, what then is its function?  No one knows.  It seems to set a _qualification _for the point it eventually gets to.  What is its status in the event that qualification is not met?  We do not know, for we are not told.
> 
> Enigma.
Click to expand...


If what you write is correct, and they wanted to be taken seriously for generations, and they wanted those generations to understand that the right to keep and bear arms was limited, they could have easily, and without it being controversial as to intent, produced an amendment that read any number of ways:

Examples being:

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the *Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of *its* *soldiers* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people *in the* *Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people, *while in service of the Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

or simply

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State must be established.

None of the above are true, which begs the question. If the intent was that only those that were in such a Militia were to be afforded a right which could not be infringed, why they wouldn't have just said so?


----------



## Pop23

danielpalos said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like guns overall, I do. But  WE can do just fine without them too. Anyone  here think their sole survival hinges on firearms ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't really matter what you think. Lets look at what a survivor of a brutal rape thinks. Her rape likely happened because of do gooders like you taking advantage of the idea that law abiding citizens will obey the law:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In college eight years ago, I was raped in a parking garage only feet from the campus police office.
> 
> I could see the police cruisers parked for the night as this stranger raped me, pistol to my head. I knew no one was coming to help me.
> 
> I should not have to hand over my safety to a third party. Laws that prohibit campus carry turn women like me into victims.
> At the time of my attack, I had a Nevada concealed carry permit. But in Nevada, permit holders are not allowed to carry firearms on campuses. As someone who obeys the law, I left my firearm at home when I went to school. The law that was meant to safeguard me – the gun-free zone – only guaranteed I would be defenseless.
> 
> Eventually the man was caught, tried and convicted – not just for using a gun in gun-free zone, but also for raping two other women and murdering one. My attacker was not a student, nor did he have a concealed-carry weapon permit.
> 
> I still wonder what would have been different if I’d had my weapon that night. But here’s the truth: I feel certain that I would have been able to stop the attack. Not only that, but two other rapes would have been prevented and three young lives would have been saved, including my own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Source: Why I Would Have Liked to Have My Weapon With Me in College - NYTimes.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> this is speculation; the other girl probably thought the same thing; and now he has her gun as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did I say it wasn't speculation? It must be speculative as outcomes of "what if's" always are, but to speculate as to one outcome is just as relavent in a discussion as the next. However; it is the VICTIMS perspective that take precedent over the arm chair quarterback.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> speculation of what the _victim_, thought she may be able to do, with a gun.
Click to expand...


Or speculation that, once the weapon was drawn, and the rapist saw he didn't have an easy target, what wouldn't have happened. It is common knowledge that rapists rape, nearly 100% of the time when, 1.) they have a weaker target. The gun makes his odds less. 2.) when he thinks he can get away unharmed or with limited damage.

Those are not speculative.


----------



## Pogo

Pop23 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the 2nd amendment was meant as the left says it was........
> 
> WHY THE HELL WOULD IT APPEAR IN THE BILL IF RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
> 
> Clue, it wouldn’t
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militia are expressly declared Necessary to the security of a free State, not the federal government or the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The stupidity here is unbelievable.
> 
> What is the militia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, and only the right wing appeals to ignorance of the law, and plain reason, not to mention, legal axioms.
> 
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> *— George Mason*_, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788_
> Only well regulated militia of the whole People, a few public officials excepted, are declared Necessary, the unorganized militia is not declared Necessary and may be Infringed by well regulated militia, when Necessary for the security of a free State.
> 
> Our supreme law of the land is about the resolution of any conflict of laws, not the whole and entire concept of natural or individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then the 2nd would have ended at the second comma, since it didn’t, it is expressing a right granted beyond the militia.
Click to expand...


This is a case of what philosopher Tim McCarver calls Paralysis through Analysis.  If the intention was to make such a distinction, they would have done it with something juuuuust a little bit clearer than a comma -- they would have spelled it out as such.  They had no 140 character limitation.  

Distinctions and exceptions are articulated thusly:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, _*unless *on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, *except *in cases arising in the land or naval forces, *or* in the Militia, *when *in actual service in time of War or public danger; ... "_​
--- there's an exception, with an exception_ to_ the exception, spelled out with words, not commas.  Trying to hang a selective interpretation on whether there's a comma here or not a comma there, is just reaching and venturing into fabrication.


----------



## danielpalos

Pop23 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't put a whole lot of stock in punctuation from a 200+ year old document, and I'm a proofreader.  Commas were used more or less indiscriminately in that less-linguistically refined period, which also displays the old German practice of capitalizing nouns ("Militia"... Security"... "State"... etc).  Language evolves over time, and the "proper" use of a comma and what it means or doesn't mean wasn't nearly as meticulously defined as it came to be.
> 
> The adjective "prefatory" though, is pure absolute snow-job *bullshit*.  All "prefatory" means is that it "comes before" or "introduces" another part (as in _preface_).  We can already see that it come first, so "prefatory" tells us absolutely nothing of what its _function _is.  And that's an enigma; the introductory phrase "a well regulated Militia being necessary to the Security of a free State" has no discernible reason to exist.  A Constitution has no need to *argue *its case for why it sets out what it does; it simply declares "these are the rules".  There's no point in _rationalizing _the Amendment as if it were part of some debate, nor does any other Amendment do so (nor should it), so the presence of the clause remains a head-scratcher.
> 
> Ultimately the presence of a subordinate clause that seems to want to argue its existence looks like either sloppy or unfinished work, or both.  If it's intended as a limitation, which is the only conceivable direction it would have wanted to go, then it's poorly written as such.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny.
> 
> The only people who think it's "poorly written" are those who want their misinterpretation accepted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fine -- then why don't you be the first person in the history of this nation, right here on USMB --- to essplain to the class why a Constitution would need to justify itself as if it's posting on a message board.
> 
> C'mon, hook a brutha up.  "Prefatory" won't do it --- we already know WHERE the clause is.  What we want to know is WHY it is.
> 
> As I said, I don't have an 'interpretation'.  As I said, it's an enigma.  Nobody has an interpretation.  Hence --- "poorly written".
> 
> And as long as we're on the subject, a Court explaining it as a "prefatory" clause is also "poorly written".  That's just unmitigated bullshit dancing around a question it can't answer either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then, you beg the question as to why it exists anyway, especially within the section of the document that outlines the rights of individuals.
> 
> Context my good man, context.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Why it exists" is indeed the question.  The context is a constitution, which is the framework for how the operation is going to run.  That makes it a simple declaration with no need whatsoever of appealing its arguments.  It has no need at all to "explain why".
> 
> When you sit down to write a constitution, you sweat over every word, since you expect it to be taken seriously by generations.  Therefore no part of what we read can be there by accident.  Many sets of eyes read it and revised it before it got signed.  Therefore it's intentional.  But that lands us in the riddle --- if it's intentional, what then is its function?  No one knows.  It seems to set a _qualification _for the point it eventually gets to.  What is its status in the event that qualification is not met?  We do not know, for we are not told.
> 
> Enigma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If what you write is correct, and they wanted to be taken seriously for generations, and they wanted those generations to understand that the right to keep and bear arms was limited, they could have easily, and without it being controversial as to intent, produced an amendment that read any number of ways:
> 
> Examples being:
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the *Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of *its* *soldiers* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people *in the* *Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people, *while in service of the Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
> 
> or simply
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State must be established.
> 
> None of the above are true, which begs the question. If the intent was that only those that were in such a Militia were to be afforded a right which could not be infringed, why they wouldn't have just said so?
Click to expand...


except; you have a false analogy due to your fallacy of composition.

"A well-regulated Militia of the whole and entire People, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


----------



## Pogo

Pop23 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't put a whole lot of stock in punctuation from a 200+ year old document, and I'm a proofreader.  Commas were used more or less indiscriminately in that less-linguistically refined period, which also displays the old German practice of capitalizing nouns ("Militia"... Security"... "State"... etc).  Language evolves over time, and the "proper" use of a comma and what it means or doesn't mean wasn't nearly as meticulously defined as it came to be.
> 
> The adjective "prefatory" though, is pure absolute snow-job *bullshit*.  All "prefatory" means is that it "comes before" or "introduces" another part (as in _preface_).  We can already see that it come first, so "prefatory" tells us absolutely nothing of what its _function _is.  And that's an enigma; the introductory phrase "a well regulated Militia being necessary to the Security of a free State" has no discernible reason to exist.  A Constitution has no need to *argue *its case for why it sets out what it does; it simply declares "these are the rules".  There's no point in _rationalizing _the Amendment as if it were part of some debate, nor does any other Amendment do so (nor should it), so the presence of the clause remains a head-scratcher.
> 
> Ultimately the presence of a subordinate clause that seems to want to argue its existence looks like either sloppy or unfinished work, or both.  If it's intended as a limitation, which is the only conceivable direction it would have wanted to go, then it's poorly written as such.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny.
> 
> The only people who think it's "poorly written" are those who want their misinterpretation accepted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fine -- then why don't you be the first person in the history of this nation, right here on USMB --- to essplain to the class why a Constitution would need to justify itself as if it's posting on a message board.
> 
> C'mon, hook a brutha up.  "Prefatory" won't do it --- we already know WHERE the clause is.  What we want to know is WHY it is.
> 
> As I said, I don't have an 'interpretation'.  As I said, it's an enigma.  Nobody has an interpretation.  Hence --- "poorly written".
> 
> And as long as we're on the subject, a Court explaining it as a "prefatory" clause is also "poorly written".  That's just unmitigated bullshit dancing around a question it can't answer either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then, you beg the question as to why it exists anyway, especially within the section of the document that outlines the rights of individuals.
> 
> Context my good man, context.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Why it exists" is indeed the question.  The context is a constitution, which is the framework for how the operation is going to run.  That makes it a simple declaration with no need whatsoever of appealing its arguments.  It has no need at all to "explain why".
> 
> When you sit down to write a constitution, you sweat over every word, since you expect it to be taken seriously by generations.  Therefore no part of what we read can be there by accident.  Many sets of eyes read it and revised it before it got signed.  Therefore it's intentional.  But that lands us in the riddle --- if it's intentional, what then is its function?  No one knows.  It seems to set a _qualification _for the point it eventually gets to.  What is its status in the event that qualification is not met?  We do not know, for we are not told.
> 
> Enigma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If what you write is correct, and they wanted to be taken seriously for generations, and they wanted those generations to understand that the right to keep and bear arms was limited, they could have easily, and without it being controversial as to intent, produced an amendment that read any number of ways:
> 
> Examples being:
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the *Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of *its* *soldiers* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people *in the* *Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people, *while in service of the Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
> 
> or simply
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State must be established.
> 
> None of the above are true, which begs the question. If the intent was that only those that were in such a Militia were to be afforded a right which could not be infringed, why they wouldn't have just said so?
Click to expand...


Why indeed.  That's the question, isn't it.  The simple fact is, (<comma) if your intent is not to single out the Militia as a setting for firearms, then you have no need of that introductory phrase whatsoever, indeed by putting it in there and in fact leading off with it, you've clouded the issue of what the intent is.  On the other hand if the intent* is* to limit firearms to the context of a Militia, you haven't specifically spelled that out either.


----------



## danielpalos

Punctuation means nothing in our Second Amendment but for pauses--emphasis.


----------



## Pop23

Pogo said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the 2nd amendment was meant as the left says it was........
> 
> WHY THE HELL WOULD IT APPEAR IN THE BILL IF RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
> 
> Clue, it wouldn’t
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militia are expressly declared Necessary to the security of a free State, not the federal government or the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The stupidity here is unbelievable.
> 
> What is the militia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, and only the right wing appeals to ignorance of the law, and plain reason, not to mention, legal axioms.
> 
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> *— George Mason*_, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788_
> Only well regulated militia of the whole People, a few public officials excepted, are declared Necessary, the unorganized militia is not declared Necessary and may be Infringed by well regulated militia, when Necessary for the security of a free State.
> 
> Our supreme law of the land is about the resolution of any conflict of laws, not the whole and entire concept of natural or individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then the 2nd would have ended at the second comma, since it didn’t, it is expressing a right granted beyond the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a case of what philosopher Tim McCarver calls Paralysis through Analysis.  If the intention was to make such a distinction, they would have done it with something juuuuust a little bit clearer than a comma -- they would have spelled it out as such.  They had no 140 character limitation.
> 
> Distinctions and exceptions are articulated thusly:
> 
> "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, _*unless *on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, *except *in cases arising in the land or naval forces, *or* in the Militia, *when *in actual service in time of War or public danger; ... "_​
> --- there's an exception, with an exception_ to_ the exception, spelled out with words, not commas.  Trying to hang a selective interpretation on whether there's a comma here or not a comma there, is just reaching and venturing into fabrication.
Click to expand...


And yet, if what you originally stated were true, and they took great time and effort to write it out so that there would be no misunderstanding (and that was your argument), I've shown how, men of great ability could have easily done that.

The problem in the theory is that they did not do so, so they intentionally did not give the right to either:

A. The Militia
B. Soldiers in service of this Militia
c. The People within the Militia

They gave it to "the People"


----------



## Pop23

danielpalos said:


> Punctuation means nothing in our Second Amendment but for pauses--emphasis.



^^^^^^ Sinking like the Titanic


----------



## Pop23

Pogo said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny.
> 
> The only people who think it's "poorly written" are those who want their misinterpretation accepted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fine -- then why don't you be the first person in the history of this nation, right here on USMB --- to essplain to the class why a Constitution would need to justify itself as if it's posting on a message board.
> 
> C'mon, hook a brutha up.  "Prefatory" won't do it --- we already know WHERE the clause is.  What we want to know is WHY it is.
> 
> As I said, I don't have an 'interpretation'.  As I said, it's an enigma.  Nobody has an interpretation.  Hence --- "poorly written".
> 
> And as long as we're on the subject, a Court explaining it as a "prefatory" clause is also "poorly written".  That's just unmitigated bullshit dancing around a question it can't answer either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then, you beg the question as to why it exists anyway, especially within the section of the document that outlines the rights of individuals.
> 
> Context my good man, context.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Why it exists" is indeed the question.  The context is a constitution, which is the framework for how the operation is going to run.  That makes it a simple declaration with no need whatsoever of appealing its arguments.  It has no need at all to "explain why".
> 
> When you sit down to write a constitution, you sweat over every word, since you expect it to be taken seriously by generations.  Therefore no part of what we read can be there by accident.  Many sets of eyes read it and revised it before it got signed.  Therefore it's intentional.  But that lands us in the riddle --- if it's intentional, what then is its function?  No one knows.  It seems to set a _qualification _for the point it eventually gets to.  What is its status in the event that qualification is not met?  We do not know, for we are not told.
> 
> Enigma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If what you write is correct, and they wanted to be taken seriously for generations, and they wanted those generations to understand that the right to keep and bear arms was limited, they could have easily, and without it being controversial as to intent, produced an amendment that read any number of ways:
> 
> Examples being:
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the *Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of *its* *soldiers* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people *in the* *Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people, *while in service of the Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
> 
> or simply
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State must be established.
> 
> None of the above are true, which begs the question. If the intent was that only those that were in such a Militia were to be afforded a right which could not be infringed, why they wouldn't have just said so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why indeed.  That's the question, isn't it.  The simple fact is, (<comma) if your intent is not to single out the Militia as a setting for firearms, then you have no need of that introductory phrase whatsoever, indeed by putting it in there and in fact leading off with it, you've clouded the issue of what the intent is.  On the other hand if the intent* is* to limit firearms to the context of a Militia, you haven't specifically spelled that out either.
Click to expand...


And by doing so, It would not appear in the "Bill of Rights", It would appear outside those parameters.


----------



## Pogo

Billy_Kinetta said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you can't answer the question, affirms the enigma.
> 
> That's what an enigma is.  It can't be figured out.
> 
> Ergo my point stands --- it's poorly written.  A constitution is no place for riddles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I answered the question.  That the answer eludes your understanding is not surprising.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you did not.  No one can answer it.
> If it could be answered, it wouldn't be an enigma, now would it.
> 
> We already agreed a constitution has no need to argue its case.  Yet here's a subordinate clause appearing to do just that.  Clearly that cannot be its function, as no adversarial argue-party exists to "convince".
> 
> Since that cannot be its function --- what is?
> 
> No one knows.  You don't know.  I don't know.  Don't nobody know.
> But here's what we do know --- when a constitution contains an extraneous clause for no discernible reason, it's "poorly written".  Unless you think that in writing the Constitution the Founders were simply playing word jumble games with us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now we're talking about how well the constitution is written and were the founders playing word games.   The right to bear arms depends on where the founders put a comma in the 2nd amendment according the courts.   The guys who wrote the constitution had no idea how to run a country and for some strange reason we think they had great insight in how the country should be run over 200 years later.  This is nuts.
> 
> The fact is we don't need a constitution as such.  We need a bill of rights that guarantees freedoms and we need laws and rules for running the goverment.   "Our obsession with the Constitution has saddled us with a dysfunctional political system, keeps us from debating the merits of divisive issues, and inflames public discourse. Instead of arguing about what is to be done, we argue about what James Madison might have wanted done 225 years ago.  The whole process is bizarre.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe the Founders were playing word games.  That's my sarcastic rejoinder to Billy Klownetta who tries to tell me that clause makes sense yet can't make sense of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That it does not make sense to you is of absolutely no consequence.  It's made sense to all Americans for nearly 250 years despite the ill-fated mid-20th Century attempt to reinterpret it in favor of increasing government authority over the issue.  It continues to make sense today with the recent reiteration of the original meaning by the SCOTUS in the Heller ruling.
Click to expand...


Again for the literarily infirm, the point has nothing in the world to do with "increasing" or "decreasing" "government authority" or whatever other paranoid fantasies the comic book you're reading instead of my posts, may present.  It's a simple breaking down of the words in the document, which is exactly what this thread is supposed to be about.  Read the title.  And this is, what, six times now you've insisted the phase "makes sense" while completely unable to explain its function, hence my point.


----------



## danielpalos

Pop23 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Punctuation means nothing in our Second Amendment but for pauses--emphasis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^^^^ Sinking like the Titanic
Click to expand...

even less than that. Our Second Amendment needs no punctuation to mean the same exact thing.


----------



## danielpalos

Pop23 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militia are expressly declared Necessary to the security of a free State, not the federal government or the People.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The stupidity here is unbelievable.
> 
> What is the militia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, and only the right wing appeals to ignorance of the law, and plain reason, not to mention, legal axioms.
> 
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> *— George Mason*_, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788_
> Only well regulated militia of the whole People, a few public officials excepted, are declared Necessary, the unorganized militia is not declared Necessary and may be Infringed by well regulated militia, when Necessary for the security of a free State.
> 
> Our supreme law of the land is about the resolution of any conflict of laws, not the whole and entire concept of natural or individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then the 2nd would have ended at the second comma, since it didn’t, it is expressing a right granted beyond the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a case of what philosopher Tim McCarver calls Paralysis through Analysis.  If the intention was to make such a distinction, they would have done it with something juuuuust a little bit clearer than a comma -- they would have spelled it out as such.  They had no 140 character limitation.
> 
> Distinctions and exceptions are articulated thusly:
> 
> "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, _*unless *on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, *except *in cases arising in the land or naval forces, *or* in the Militia, *when *in actual service in time of War or public danger; ... "_​
> --- there's an exception, with an exception_ to_ the exception, spelled out with words, not commas.  Trying to hang a selective interpretation on whether there's a comma here or not a comma there, is just reaching and venturing into fabrication.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet, if what you originally stated were true, and they took great time and effort to write it out so that there would be no misunderstanding (and that was your argument), I've shown how, men of great ability could have easily done that.
> 
> The problem in the theory is that they did not do so, so they intentionally did not give the right to either:
> 
> A. The Militia
> B. Soldiers in service of this Militia
> c. The People within the Militia
> 
> They gave it to "the People"
Click to expand...

The People are the militia.  Only the right wing appeals to ignorance of this term.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

Pogo said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> I answered the question.  That the answer eludes your understanding is not surprising.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you did not.  No one can answer it.
> If it could be answered, it wouldn't be an enigma, now would it.
> 
> We already agreed a constitution has no need to argue its case.  Yet here's a subordinate clause appearing to do just that.  Clearly that cannot be its function, as no adversarial argue-party exists to "convince".
> 
> Since that cannot be its function --- what is?
> 
> No one knows.  You don't know.  I don't know.  Don't nobody know.
> But here's what we do know --- when a constitution contains an extraneous clause for no discernible reason, it's "poorly written".  Unless you think that in writing the Constitution the Founders were simply playing word jumble games with us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now we're talking about how well the constitution is written and were the founders playing word games.   The right to bear arms depends on where the founders put a comma in the 2nd amendment according the courts.   The guys who wrote the constitution had no idea how to run a country and for some strange reason we think they had great insight in how the country should be run over 200 years later.  This is nuts.
> 
> The fact is we don't need a constitution as such.  We need a bill of rights that guarantees freedoms and we need laws and rules for running the goverment.   "Our obsession with the Constitution has saddled us with a dysfunctional political system, keeps us from debating the merits of divisive issues, and inflames public discourse. Instead of arguing about what is to be done, we argue about what James Madison might have wanted done 225 years ago.  The whole process is bizarre.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe the Founders were playing word games.  That's my sarcastic rejoinder to Billy Klownetta who tries to tell me that clause makes sense yet can't make sense of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That it does not make sense to you is of absolutely no consequence.  It's made sense to all Americans for nearly 250 years despite the ill-fated mid-20th Century attempt to reinterpret it in favor of increasing government authority over the issue.  It continues to make sense today with the recent reiteration of the original meaning by the SCOTUS in the Heller ruling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again for the literarily infirm, the point has nothing in the world to do with "increasing" or "decreasing" "government authority" or whatever other paranoid fantasies the comic book you're reading instead of my posts, may present.  It's a simple breaking down of the words in the document, which is exactly what this thread is supposed to be about.  Read the title.  And this is, what, six times now you've insisted the phase "makes sense" while completely unable to explain its function, hence my point.
Click to expand...


See #503.  Clear answers do not require your trademark verbosity.

As to the grammar of the 18th Century, avail yourself of the fine online sources available to you.


----------



## Pogo

Billy_Kinetta said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you did not.  No one can answer it.
> If it could be answered, it wouldn't be an enigma, now would it.
> 
> We already agreed a constitution has no need to argue its case.  Yet here's a subordinate clause appearing to do just that.  Clearly that cannot be its function, as no adversarial argue-party exists to "convince".
> 
> Since that cannot be its function --- what is?
> 
> No one knows.  You don't know.  I don't know.  Don't nobody know.
> But here's what we do know --- when a constitution contains an extraneous clause for no discernible reason, it's "poorly written".  Unless you think that in writing the Constitution the Founders were simply playing word jumble games with us.
> 
> 
> 
> Now we're talking about how well the constitution is written and were the founders playing word games.   The right to bear arms depends on where the founders put a comma in the 2nd amendment according the courts.   The guys who wrote the constitution had no idea how to run a country and for some strange reason we think they had great insight in how the country should be run over 200 years later.  This is nuts.
> 
> The fact is we don't need a constitution as such.  We need a bill of rights that guarantees freedoms and we need laws and rules for running the goverment.   "Our obsession with the Constitution has saddled us with a dysfunctional political system, keeps us from debating the merits of divisive issues, and inflames public discourse. Instead of arguing about what is to be done, we argue about what James Madison might have wanted done 225 years ago.  The whole process is bizarre.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe the Founders were playing word games.  That's my sarcastic rejoinder to Billy Klownetta who tries to tell me that clause makes sense yet can't make sense of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That it does not make sense to you is of absolutely no consequence.  It's made sense to all Americans for nearly 250 years despite the ill-fated mid-20th Century attempt to reinterpret it in favor of increasing government authority over the issue.  It continues to make sense today with the recent reiteration of the original meaning by the SCOTUS in the Heller ruling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again for the literarily infirm, the point has nothing in the world to do with "increasing" or "decreasing" "government authority" or whatever other paranoid fantasies the comic book you're reading instead of my posts, may present.  It's a simple breaking down of the words in the document, which is exactly what this thread is supposed to be about.  Read the title.  And this is, what, six times now you've insisted the phase "makes sense" while completely unable to explain its function, hence my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See #503.  Clear answers do not require your trademark verbosity.
> 
> As to the grammar of the 18th Century, avail yourself of the fine online sources available to you.
Click to expand...


Once AGAIN --- 503 doesn't address the question in any way at all, and I noted this immediately after you posted it.

Here's 503 IN FULL:



Billy_Kinetta said:


> There's no enigma. The militia is bound to the right. The right is not bound to the militia.



--- Doesn't even _touch_ the question.  Don't sit here and try to bullshit the board.

Face it, you know you can't do it, which is what I already noted at the outset --- _nobody_ can do it.  It's an enigma.  You just can't admit it, which is why you keep trying to veer off to "militias" and "government authority" and "Democrats" --- anything but taking on the question.


----------



## Pop23

danielpalos said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> The stupidity here is unbelievable.
> 
> What is the militia?
> 
> 
> 
> yes, and only the right wing appeals to ignorance of the law, and plain reason, not to mention, legal axioms.
> 
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> *— George Mason*_, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788_
> Only well regulated militia of the whole People, a few public officials excepted, are declared Necessary, the unorganized militia is not declared Necessary and may be Infringed by well regulated militia, when Necessary for the security of a free State.
> 
> Our supreme law of the land is about the resolution of any conflict of laws, not the whole and entire concept of natural or individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then the 2nd would have ended at the second comma, since it didn’t, it is expressing a right granted beyond the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a case of what philosopher Tim McCarver calls Paralysis through Analysis.  If the intention was to make such a distinction, they would have done it with something juuuuust a little bit clearer than a comma -- they would have spelled it out as such.  They had no 140 character limitation.
> 
> Distinctions and exceptions are articulated thusly:
> 
> "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, _*unless *on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, *except *in cases arising in the land or naval forces, *or* in the Militia, *when *in actual service in time of War or public danger; ... "_​
> --- there's an exception, with an exception_ to_ the exception, spelled out with words, not commas.  Trying to hang a selective interpretation on whether there's a comma here or not a comma there, is just reaching and venturing into fabrication.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet, if what you originally stated were true, and they took great time and effort to write it out so that there would be no misunderstanding (and that was your argument), I've shown how, men of great ability could have easily done that.
> 
> The problem in the theory is that they did not do so, so they intentionally did not give the right to either:
> 
> A. The Militia
> B. Soldiers in service of this Militia
> c. The People within the Militia
> 
> They gave it to "the People"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the militia.  Only the right wing appeals to ignorance of this term.
Click to expand...


If so, it is not in the 2nd. Kind of strange omission of which you have no reasoning as to why it would have been omitted in the first place, seeing that, spelling that point out would have been so simple (delete people, insert Militia). And if you are correct, the 2nd is horribly misplace as well, being that it is within "the Bill of Rights"

So your argument is, that the Founding Fathers were Idiots? Is that it?

But continue please, you do provide comic relief.


----------



## danielpalos

Pop23 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes, and only the right wing appeals to ignorance of the law, and plain reason, not to mention, legal axioms.
> 
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> *— George Mason*_, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788_
> Only well regulated militia of the whole People, a few public officials excepted, are declared Necessary, the unorganized militia is not declared Necessary and may be Infringed by well regulated militia, when Necessary for the security of a free State.
> 
> Our supreme law of the land is about the resolution of any conflict of laws, not the whole and entire concept of natural or individual rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then the 2nd would have ended at the second comma, since it didn’t, it is expressing a right granted beyond the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a case of what philosopher Tim McCarver calls Paralysis through Analysis.  If the intention was to make such a distinction, they would have done it with something juuuuust a little bit clearer than a comma -- they would have spelled it out as such.  They had no 140 character limitation.
> 
> Distinctions and exceptions are articulated thusly:
> 
> "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, _*unless *on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, *except *in cases arising in the land or naval forces, *or* in the Militia, *when *in actual service in time of War or public danger; ... "_​
> --- there's an exception, with an exception_ to_ the exception, spelled out with words, not commas.  Trying to hang a selective interpretation on whether there's a comma here or not a comma there, is just reaching and venturing into fabrication.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet, if what you originally stated were true, and they took great time and effort to write it out so that there would be no misunderstanding (and that was your argument), I've shown how, men of great ability could have easily done that.
> 
> The problem in the theory is that they did not do so, so they intentionally did not give the right to either:
> 
> A. The Militia
> B. Soldiers in service of this Militia
> c. The People within the Militia
> 
> They gave it to "the People"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the militia.  Only the right wing appeals to ignorance of this term.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If so, it is not in the 2nd. Kind of strange omission of which you have no reasoning as to why it would have been omitted in the first place, seeing that, spelling that point out would have been so simple (delete people, insert Militia). And if you are correct, the 2nd is horribly misplace as well, being that it is within "the Bill of Rights"
> 
> So your argument is, that the Founding Fathers were Idiots? Is that it?
> 
> But continue please, you do provide comic relief.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is.  Well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, is what our Second Amendment is about.


----------



## Pop23

danielpalos said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then the 2nd would have ended at the second comma, since it didn’t, it is expressing a right granted beyond the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a case of what philosopher Tim McCarver calls Paralysis through Analysis.  If the intention was to make such a distinction, they would have done it with something juuuuust a little bit clearer than a comma -- they would have spelled it out as such.  They had no 140 character limitation.
> 
> Distinctions and exceptions are articulated thusly:
> 
> "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, _*unless *on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, *except *in cases arising in the land or naval forces, *or* in the Militia, *when *in actual service in time of War or public danger; ... "_​
> --- there's an exception, with an exception_ to_ the exception, spelled out with words, not commas.  Trying to hang a selective interpretation on whether there's a comma here or not a comma there, is just reaching and venturing into fabrication.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet, if what you originally stated were true, and they took great time and effort to write it out so that there would be no misunderstanding (and that was your argument), I've shown how, men of great ability could have easily done that.
> 
> The problem in the theory is that they did not do so, so they intentionally did not give the right to either:
> 
> A. The Militia
> B. Soldiers in service of this Militia
> c. The People within the Militia
> 
> They gave it to "the People"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the militia.  Only the right wing appeals to ignorance of this term.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If so, it is not in the 2nd. Kind of strange omission of which you have no reasoning as to why it would have been omitted in the first place, seeing that, spelling that point out would have been so simple (delete people, insert Militia). And if you are correct, the 2nd is horribly misplace as well, being that it is within "the Bill of Rights"
> 
> So your argument is, that the Founding Fathers were Idiots? Is that it?
> 
> But continue please, you do provide comic relief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it is.  Well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, is what our Second Amendment is about.
Click to expand...


Nice to hear your opinion again, even though it is not what is stated in the Second Amendment and would make it's placement within the "Bill of Rights" ridiculous.

But keep up the fight, I'm sure you have 6 or 7 supporters in a country of 327,000.000.

Not a great start, but a start non the less.


----------



## Flopper

Pilot1 said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like guns overall, I do. But  WE can do just fine without them too. Anyone  here think their sole survival hinges on firearms ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't live in fear.  Until someone breaks into my house, and tries to harm me, and my family, until then no, my survival does not hinge on firearms.  When that happens it does.  So, when I can predict when that will happen with enough marging to call the police, and guarantee their arrival, then I will give up my firearms.
> 
> Also, when governments demonstrate, they can be 100% non corrupt, and benevolent.
Click to expand...

*There're certainly exceptions, but if you're like most people who buy a gun for protection, you would be far better off without it.  Despite the huge effort to publicize successful defenses of life and property with firearms, the statistics tell a far different story of people shooting their kids, neighbors, police, and themselves.  Using  firearms at night against a moving person is nothing like shooting cans on a camping trip 5 years ago.  If you point a gun at a potentially armed person you better be prepared to use it effectively.  You have to make decisions within a fraction of a second that can effect the rest of your life. Is your line fire going to send bullets into your neighbors or your kids bedroom?  Does the intruder have a gun in his hand or a cell phone?  Is this really an intruder or is he your drunken neighbor who entering the wrong house or your wayward son returning home? 

Faced with an intruder in the home, most people would be better off following the 911 operator's advice when reporting an intruder. GET OUT!  Go out the back door, crawl through a window or hide but do not engage the intruder.  In other words, being faced with fight or flight, flight is probably your best option.*


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

Flopper said:


> Pilot1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like guns overall, I do. But  WE can do just fine without them too. Anyone  here think their sole survival hinges on firearms ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't live in fear.  Until someone breaks into my house, and tries to harm me, and my family, until then no, my survival does not hinge on firearms.  When that happens it does.  So, when I can predict when that will happen with enough marging to call the police, and guarantee their arrival, then I will give up my firearms.
> 
> Also, when governments demonstrate, they can be 100% non corrupt, and benevolent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *There're certainly exceptions, but if you're like most people who buy a gun for protection, you would be far better off without it.  Despite the huge effort to publicize successful defenses of life and property with firearms, the statistics tell a far different story of people shooting their kids, neighbors, police, and themselves.  Using  firearms at night against a moving person is nothing like shooting cans on a camping trip 5 years ago.  If you point a gun at a potentially armed person you better be prepared to use it effectively.  You have to make decisions within a fraction of a second that can effect the rest of your life. Is your line fire going to send bullets into your neighbors or your kids bedroom?  Does the intruder have a gun in his hand or a cell phone?  Is this really an intruder or is he your drunken neighbor who entering the wrong house or your wayward son returning home?
> 
> Faced with an intruder in the home, most people would be better off following the 911 operator's advice when reporting an intruder. GET OUT!  Go out the back door, crawl through a window or hide but do not engage the intruder.  In other words, being faced with fight or flight, flight is probably your best option.*
Click to expand...


Source?

Deja vu all over again.


----------



## Pop23

Flopper said:


> Pilot1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like guns overall, I do. But  WE can do just fine without them too. Anyone  here think their sole survival hinges on firearms ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't live in fear.  Until someone breaks into my house, and tries to harm me, and my family, until then no, my survival does not hinge on firearms.  When that happens it does.  So, when I can predict when that will happen with enough marging to call the police, and guarantee their arrival, then I will give up my firearms.
> 
> Also, when governments demonstrate, they can be 100% non corrupt, and benevolent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *There're certainly exceptions, but if you're like most people who buy a gun for protection, you would be far better off without it.  Despite the huge effort to publicize successful defenses of life and property with firearms, the statistics tell a far different story of people shooting their kids, neighbors, police, and themselves.  Using  firearms at night against a moving person is nothing like shooting cans on a camping trip 5 years ago.  If you point a gun at a potentially armed person you better be prepared to use it effectively.  You have to make decisions within a fraction of a second that can effect the rest of your life. Is your line fire going to send bullets into your neighbors or your kids bedroom?  Does the intruder have a gun in his hand or a cell phone?  Is this really an intruder or is he your drunken neighbor who entering the wrong house or your wayward son returning home?
> 
> Faced with an intruder in the home, most people would be better off following the 911 operator's advice when reporting an intruder. GET OUT!  Go out the back door, crawl through a window or hide but do not engage the intruder.  In other words, being faced with fight or flight, flight is probably your best option.*
Click to expand...




> *There're certainly exceptions, but if you're like most people who buy a gun for protection, you would be far better off without it.  Despite the huge effort to publicize successful defenses of life and property with firearms, the statistics tell a far different story of people shooting their kids, neighbors, police, and themselves. *


*
*
Of course, what you say may be true, in some incidents, in others, no, it's not true

What you reference in this all falls under accidental shootings. Those make up an average of 1.55 per day in a total population of 327,000,000. Certainly not enough to be addressed as a public health problem. That begs the question though of how many times has the possession of a gun stopped a murder or a murder/rape? Would it be unreasonable to speculate that to be equal to, or greater than 1.55 per day? It certainly seems a reasonable number on a daily basis considering that it falls within a population of 327,000,000.


----------



## Flopper

Pogo said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny.
> 
> The only people who think it's "poorly written" are those who want their misinterpretation accepted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fine -- then why don't you be the first person in the history of this nation, right here on USMB --- to essplain to the class why a Constitution would need to justify itself as if it's posting on a message board.
> 
> C'mon, hook a brutha up.  "Prefatory" won't do it --- we already know WHERE the clause is.  What we want to know is WHY it is.
> 
> As I said, I don't have an 'interpretation'.  As I said, it's an enigma.  Nobody has an interpretation.  Hence --- "poorly written".
> 
> And as long as we're on the subject, a Court explaining it as a "prefatory" clause is also "poorly written".  That's just unmitigated bullshit dancing around a question it can't answer either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then, you beg the question as to why it exists anyway, especially within the section of the document that outlines the rights of individuals.
> 
> Context my good man, context.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Why it exists" is indeed the question.  The context is a constitution, which is the framework for how the operation is going to run.  That makes it a simple declaration with no need whatsoever of appealing its arguments.  It has no need at all to "explain why".
> 
> When you sit down to write a constitution, you sweat over every word, since you expect it to be taken seriously by generations.  Therefore no part of what we read can be there by accident.  Many sets of eyes read it and revised it before it got signed.  Therefore it's intentional.  But that lands us in the riddle --- if it's intentional, what then is its function?  No one knows.  It seems to set a _qualification _for the point it eventually gets to.  What is its status in the event that qualification is not met?  We do not know, for we are not told.
> 
> Enigma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If what you write is correct, and they wanted to be taken seriously for generations, and they wanted those generations to understand that the right to keep and bear arms was limited, they could have easily, and without it being controversial as to intent, produced an amendment that read any number of ways:
> 
> Examples being:
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the *Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of *its* *soldiers* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people *in the* *Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people, *while in service of the Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
> 
> or simply
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State must be established.
> 
> None of the above are true, which begs the question. If the intent was that only those that were in such a Militia were to be afforded a right which could not be infringed, why they wouldn't have just said so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why indeed.  That's the question, isn't it.  The simple fact is, (<comma) if your intent is not to single out the Militia as a setting for firearms, then you have no need of that introductory phrase whatsoever, indeed by putting it in there and in fact leading off with it, you've clouded the issue of what the intent is.  On the other hand if the intent* is* to limit firearms to the context of a Militia, you haven't specifically spelled that out either.
Click to expand...

*The phrase was put in the amendment to gain support of several states strongly committed to a citizen militias for defense of the country.

The fact is most people had no real interest in the right to bear arms because in those days firearms meant muskets which were lousy for self defense, very inaccurate unless you had a long rifle and were too costly.  About the only real use was in volley firings which is how muskets were commonly used in militias.  The reason for the 2nd amendment 230 years ago and today are completely different.*


----------



## Pop23

Flopper said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fine -- then why don't you be the first person in the history of this nation, right here on USMB --- to essplain to the class why a Constitution would need to justify itself as if it's posting on a message board.
> 
> C'mon, hook a brutha up.  "Prefatory" won't do it --- we already know WHERE the clause is.  What we want to know is WHY it is.
> 
> As I said, I don't have an 'interpretation'.  As I said, it's an enigma.  Nobody has an interpretation.  Hence --- "poorly written".
> 
> And as long as we're on the subject, a Court explaining it as a "prefatory" clause is also "poorly written".  That's just unmitigated bullshit dancing around a question it can't answer either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then, you beg the question as to why it exists anyway, especially within the section of the document that outlines the rights of individuals.
> 
> Context my good man, context.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Why it exists" is indeed the question.  The context is a constitution, which is the framework for how the operation is going to run.  That makes it a simple declaration with no need whatsoever of appealing its arguments.  It has no need at all to "explain why".
> 
> When you sit down to write a constitution, you sweat over every word, since you expect it to be taken seriously by generations.  Therefore no part of what we read can be there by accident.  Many sets of eyes read it and revised it before it got signed.  Therefore it's intentional.  But that lands us in the riddle --- if it's intentional, what then is its function?  No one knows.  It seems to set a _qualification _for the point it eventually gets to.  What is its status in the event that qualification is not met?  We do not know, for we are not told.
> 
> Enigma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If what you write is correct, and they wanted to be taken seriously for generations, and they wanted those generations to understand that the right to keep and bear arms was limited, they could have easily, and without it being controversial as to intent, produced an amendment that read any number of ways:
> 
> Examples being:
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the *Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of *its* *soldiers* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people *in the* *Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people, *while in service of the Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
> 
> or simply
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State must be established.
> 
> None of the above are true, which begs the question. If the intent was that only those that were in such a Militia were to be afforded a right which could not be infringed, why they wouldn't have just said so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why indeed.  That's the question, isn't it.  The simple fact is, (<comma) if your intent is not to single out the Militia as a setting for firearms, then you have no need of that introductory phrase whatsoever, indeed by putting it in there and in fact leading off with it, you've clouded the issue of what the intent is.  On the other hand if the intent* is* to limit firearms to the context of a Militia, you haven't specifically spelled that out either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The phrase was put in the amendment to gain support of several states strongly committed to a citizen militias for defense of the country.
> 
> The fact is most people had no real interest in the right to bear arms because in those days firearms meant muskets which were lousy for self defense, very inaccurate unless you had a long rifle and were too costly.  About the only real use was in volley firings which is how muskets were commonly used in militias.  The reason for the 2nd amendment 230 years ago and today are completely different.*
Click to expand...


Which, once again, simply begs the question as to why it does not read.......

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the *Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of *its* *soldiers* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people *in the* *Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people, *while in service of the Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

or simply

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State must be established."

These were not how the document written.

Certainly, these Men of such education would have seen that any of the above would have much better accomplish their intent. But for some reason, they didn't, PLUS

Included it in a position within the document that makes almost zero sense if it had been include as you say it is.


----------



## Pogo

Flopper said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fine -- then why don't you be the first person in the history of this nation, right here on USMB --- to essplain to the class why a Constitution would need to justify itself as if it's posting on a message board.
> 
> C'mon, hook a brutha up.  "Prefatory" won't do it --- we already know WHERE the clause is.  What we want to know is WHY it is.
> 
> As I said, I don't have an 'interpretation'.  As I said, it's an enigma.  Nobody has an interpretation.  Hence --- "poorly written".
> 
> And as long as we're on the subject, a Court explaining it as a "prefatory" clause is also "poorly written".  That's just unmitigated bullshit dancing around a question it can't answer either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then, you beg the question as to why it exists anyway, especially within the section of the document that outlines the rights of individuals.
> 
> Context my good man, context.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Why it exists" is indeed the question.  The context is a constitution, which is the framework for how the operation is going to run.  That makes it a simple declaration with no need whatsoever of appealing its arguments.  It has no need at all to "explain why".
> 
> When you sit down to write a constitution, you sweat over every word, since you expect it to be taken seriously by generations.  Therefore no part of what we read can be there by accident.  Many sets of eyes read it and revised it before it got signed.  Therefore it's intentional.  But that lands us in the riddle --- if it's intentional, what then is its function?  No one knows.  It seems to set a _qualification _for the point it eventually gets to.  What is its status in the event that qualification is not met?  We do not know, for we are not told.
> 
> Enigma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If what you write is correct, and they wanted to be taken seriously for generations, and they wanted those generations to understand that the right to keep and bear arms was limited, they could have easily, and without it being controversial as to intent, produced an amendment that read any number of ways:
> 
> Examples being:
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the *Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of *its* *soldiers* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people *in the* *Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people, *while in service of the Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
> 
> or simply
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State must be established.
> 
> None of the above are true, which begs the question. If the intent was that only those that were in such a Militia were to be afforded a right which could not be infringed, why they wouldn't have just said so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why indeed.  That's the question, isn't it.  The simple fact is, (<comma) if your intent is not to single out the Militia as a setting for firearms, then you have no need of that introductory phrase whatsoever, indeed by putting it in there and in fact leading off with it, you've clouded the issue of what the intent is.  On the other hand if the intent* is* to limit firearms to the context of a Militia, you haven't specifically spelled that out either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The phrase was put in the amendment to gain support of several states strongly committed to a citizen militias for defense of the country.
> 
> The fact is most people had no real interest in the right to bear arms because in those days firearms meant muskets which were lousy for self defense, very inaccurate unless you had a long rifle and were too costly.  About the only real use was in volley firings which is how muskets were commonly used in militias.  The reason for the 2nd amendment 230 years ago and today are completely different.
Click to expand...


I agree with all that and already made the point about the development of the Minié Ball half a century after the document.

But the phrase itself still conveys no coherent thought and its purpose remains unknown.  This is an entirely separate issue from what the tenor (or technology) of the times was.


----------



## Pilot1

The PEOPLE were always intended to be the Militia, not the State.  Also the People were always to purchase, and maintain their arms, and skills on their own, as individuals.  Thus the specific right of the People to keep, and bear arms.


----------



## Flopper

Pop23 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pilot1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like guns overall, I do. But  WE can do just fine without them too. Anyone  here think their sole survival hinges on firearms ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't live in fear.  Until someone breaks into my house, and tries to harm me, and my family, until then no, my survival does not hinge on firearms.  When that happens it does.  So, when I can predict when that will happen with enough marging to call the police, and guarantee their arrival, then I will give up my firearms.
> 
> Also, when governments demonstrate, they can be 100% non corrupt, and benevolent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *There're certainly exceptions, but if you're like most people who buy a gun for protection, you would be far better off without it.  Despite the huge effort to publicize successful defenses of life and property with firearms, the statistics tell a far different story of people shooting their kids, neighbors, police, and themselves.  Using  firearms at night against a moving person is nothing like shooting cans on a camping trip 5 years ago.  If you point a gun at a potentially armed person you better be prepared to use it effectively.  You have to make decisions within a fraction of a second that can effect the rest of your life. Is your line fire going to send bullets into your neighbors or your kids bedroom?  Does the intruder have a gun in his hand or a cell phone?  Is this really an intruder or is he your drunken neighbor who entering the wrong house or your wayward son returning home?
> 
> Faced with an intruder in the home, most people would be better off following the 911 operator's advice when reporting an intruder. GET OUT!  Go out the back door, crawl through a window or hide but do not engage the intruder.  In other words, being faced with fight or flight, flight is probably your best option.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *There're certainly exceptions, but if you're like most people who buy a gun for protection, you would be far better off without it.  Despite the huge effort to publicize successful defenses of life and property with firearms, the statistics tell a far different story of people shooting their kids, neighbors, police, and themselves. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course, what you say may be true, in some incidents, in others, no, it's not true
> 
> What you reference in this all falls under accidental shootings. Those make up an average of 1.55 per day in a total population of 327,000,000. Certainly not enough to be addressed as a public health problem. That begs the question though of how many times has the possession of a gun stopped a murder or a murder/rape? Would it be unreasonable to speculate that to be equal to, or greater than 1.55 per day? It certainly seems a reasonable number on a daily basis considering that it falls within a population of 327,000,000.
Click to expand...

*Since there is no real data, one can certainly speculate.*


----------



## Flopper

Pilot1 said:


> The PEOPLE were always intended to be the Militia, not the State.  Also the People were always to purchase, and maintain their arms, and skills on their own, as individuals.  Thus the specific right of the People to keep, and bear arms.


*Most colonist were opposed to a standing army.  However, it is not clear as to what degree they supported militias.  We do know that not many colonies own guns (muskets).  According to a survey conducted by the militia in North Carolina, only 1 in 5 households owned a musket and half were inoperable. The public did not become really interested in owning guns till the 1800's when great advancements were made in firearms.   *


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

Flopper said:


> Pilot1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The PEOPLE were always intended to be the Militia, not the State.  Also the People were always to purchase, and maintain their arms, and skills on their own, as individuals.  Thus the specific right of the People to keep, and bear arms.
> 
> 
> 
> *Most colonist were opposed to a standing army.  However, it is not clear as to what degree they supported militias.  We do know that not many colonies own guns (muskets).  According to a survey conducted by the militia in North Carolina, only 1 in 5 households owned a musket and half were inoperable. The public did not become really interested in owning guns till the 1800's when great advancements were made in firearms.   *
Click to expand...


Bullshit.  Quit selling Bellesiles.  He was discounted and shamed 18 years ago.

I responded to your reference.  See #483.


----------



## Flopper

Pop23 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then, you beg the question as to why it exists anyway, especially within the section of the document that outlines the rights of individuals.
> 
> Context my good man, context.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Why it exists" is indeed the question.  The context is a constitution, which is the framework for how the operation is going to run.  That makes it a simple declaration with no need whatsoever of appealing its arguments.  It has no need at all to "explain why".
> 
> When you sit down to write a constitution, you sweat over every word, since you expect it to be taken seriously by generations.  Therefore no part of what we read can be there by accident.  Many sets of eyes read it and revised it before it got signed.  Therefore it's intentional.  But that lands us in the riddle --- if it's intentional, what then is its function?  No one knows.  It seems to set a _qualification _for the point it eventually gets to.  What is its status in the event that qualification is not met?  We do not know, for we are not told.
> 
> Enigma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If what you write is correct, and they wanted to be taken seriously for generations, and they wanted those generations to understand that the right to keep and bear arms was limited, they could have easily, and without it being controversial as to intent, produced an amendment that read any number of ways:
> 
> Examples being:
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the *Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of *its* *soldiers* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people *in the* *Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people, *while in service of the Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
> 
> or simply
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State must be established.
> 
> None of the above are true, which begs the question. If the intent was that only those that were in such a Militia were to be afforded a right which could not be infringed, why they wouldn't have just said so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why indeed.  That's the question, isn't it.  The simple fact is, (<comma) if your intent is not to single out the Militia as a setting for firearms, then you have no need of that introductory phrase whatsoever, indeed by putting it in there and in fact leading off with it, you've clouded the issue of what the intent is.  On the other hand if the intent* is* to limit firearms to the context of a Militia, you haven't specifically spelled that out either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The phrase was put in the amendment to gain support of several states strongly committed to a citizen militias for defense of the country.
> 
> The fact is most people had no real interest in the right to bear arms because in those days firearms meant muskets which were lousy for self defense, very inaccurate unless you had a long rifle and were too costly.  About the only real use was in volley firings which is how muskets were commonly used in militias.  The reason for the 2nd amendment 230 years ago and today are completely different.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which, once again, simply begs the question as to why it does not read.......
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the *Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of *its* *soldiers* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people *in the* *Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people, *while in service of the Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
> 
> or simply
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State must be established."
> 
> These were not how the document written.
> 
> Certainly, these Men of such education would have seen that any of the above would have much better accomplish their intent. But for some reason, they didn't, PLUS
> 
> Included it in a position within the document that makes almost zero sense if it had been include as you say it is.
Click to expand...

*To be in a militia you had to own a gun and know how to use it.  The state did not pay for guns or train people to shoot.  So the amendment could not restrict the right to just those in the militia because that implies the state would have to provide the guns as well train people to use them which is exactly what these states were trying to avoid.  They wanted the country defended by volunteers with little or no involvement of the government; that is no new taxes.     *


----------



## Pop23

Flopper said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Why it exists" is indeed the question.  The context is a constitution, which is the framework for how the operation is going to run.  That makes it a simple declaration with no need whatsoever of appealing its arguments.  It has no need at all to "explain why".
> 
> When you sit down to write a constitution, you sweat over every word, since you expect it to be taken seriously by generations.  Therefore no part of what we read can be there by accident.  Many sets of eyes read it and revised it before it got signed.  Therefore it's intentional.  But that lands us in the riddle --- if it's intentional, what then is its function?  No one knows.  It seems to set a _qualification _for the point it eventually gets to.  What is its status in the event that qualification is not met?  We do not know, for we are not told.
> 
> Enigma.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If what you write is correct, and they wanted to be taken seriously for generations, and they wanted those generations to understand that the right to keep and bear arms was limited, they could have easily, and without it being controversial as to intent, produced an amendment that read any number of ways:
> 
> Examples being:
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the *Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of *its* *soldiers* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people *in the* *Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people, *while in service of the Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
> 
> or simply
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State must be established.
> 
> None of the above are true, which begs the question. If the intent was that only those that were in such a Militia were to be afforded a right which could not be infringed, why they wouldn't have just said so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why indeed.  That's the question, isn't it.  The simple fact is, (<comma) if your intent is not to single out the Militia as a setting for firearms, then you have no need of that introductory phrase whatsoever, indeed by putting it in there and in fact leading off with it, you've clouded the issue of what the intent is.  On the other hand if the intent* is* to limit firearms to the context of a Militia, you haven't specifically spelled that out either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The phrase was put in the amendment to gain support of several states strongly committed to a citizen militias for defense of the country.
> 
> The fact is most people had no real interest in the right to bear arms because in those days firearms meant muskets which were lousy for self defense, very inaccurate unless you had a long rifle and were too costly.  About the only real use was in volley firings which is how muskets were commonly used in militias.  The reason for the 2nd amendment 230 years ago and today are completely different.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which, once again, simply begs the question as to why it does not read.......
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the *Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of *its* *soldiers* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people *in the* *Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people, *while in service of the Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
> 
> or simply
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State must be established."
> 
> These were not how the document written.
> 
> Certainly, these Men of such education would have seen that any of the above would have much better accomplish their intent. But for some reason, they didn't, PLUS
> 
> Included it in a position within the document that makes almost zero sense if it had been include as you say it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *To be in a militia you had to own a gun and know how to use it.  The state did not pay for guns or train people to shoot.  So the amendment could not restrict the right to just those in the militia because that implies the state would have to provide the guns as well train people to use them which is exactly what these states were trying to avoid.  They wanted the country defended by volunteers with little or no involvement of the government; that is no new taxes.     *
Click to expand...


You still do not answer the question. The way to have approached the writing could, and if it supports your point of view, would have been done far differently (see my examples above), and would NOT HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS.


----------



## danielpalos

Pop23 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a case of what philosopher Tim McCarver calls Paralysis through Analysis.  If the intention was to make such a distinction, they would have done it with something juuuuust a little bit clearer than a comma -- they would have spelled it out as such.  They had no 140 character limitation.
> 
> Distinctions and exceptions are articulated thusly:
> 
> "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, _*unless *on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, *except *in cases arising in the land or naval forces, *or* in the Militia, *when *in actual service in time of War or public danger; ... "_​
> --- there's an exception, with an exception_ to_ the exception, spelled out with words, not commas.  Trying to hang a selective interpretation on whether there's a comma here or not a comma there, is just reaching and venturing into fabrication.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet, if what you originally stated were true, and they took great time and effort to write it out so that there would be no misunderstanding (and that was your argument), I've shown how, men of great ability could have easily done that.
> 
> The problem in the theory is that they did not do so, so they intentionally did not give the right to either:
> 
> A. The Militia
> B. Soldiers in service of this Militia
> c. The People within the Militia
> 
> They gave it to "the People"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the militia.  Only the right wing appeals to ignorance of this term.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If so, it is not in the 2nd. Kind of strange omission of which you have no reasoning as to why it would have been omitted in the first place, seeing that, spelling that point out would have been so simple (delete people, insert Militia). And if you are correct, the 2nd is horribly misplace as well, being that it is within "the Bill of Rights"
> 
> So your argument is, that the Founding Fathers were Idiots? Is that it?
> 
> But continue please, you do provide comic relief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it is.  Well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, is what our Second Amendment is about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice to hear your opinion again, even though it is not what is stated in the Second Amendment and would make it's placement within the "Bill of Rights" ridiculous.
> 
> But keep up the fight, I'm sure you have 6 or 7 supporters in a country of 327,000.000.
> 
> Not a great start, but a start non the less.
Click to expand...

Projecting much?  all the right wing does best, is appeal to ignorance of the law. 

The people are the militia.  You are, either; well regulated or unorganized.  there are no Individual rights, in our Second Article of Amendment.


----------



## danielpalos

Pilot1 said:


> The PEOPLE were always intended to be the Militia, not the State.  Also the People were always to purchase, and maintain their arms, and skills on their own, as individuals.  Thus the specific right of the People to keep, and bear arms.


where does the right wing come up with this, propaganda?


----------



## Pilot1

danielpalos said:


> where does the right wing come up with this, propaganda?



The Constitution, The Federalist Papers, and many other sources.  Where does the right come up with every lie to take away people's rights?


----------



## danielpalos

Pilot1 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> where does the right wing come up with this, propaganda?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution, The Federalist Papers, and many other sources.  Where does the right come up with every lie to take away people's rights?
Click to expand...

Should anyone on the left, confide in the sincerity of anyone on the right, regarding politics, and the law?



> 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;


----------



## Pilot1

danielpalos said:


> Projecting much?  all the right wing does best, is appeal to ignorance of the law.
> 
> The people are the militia.  You are, either; well regulated or unorganized.  *there are no Individual rights, in our Second Article of Amendment*.



Not true at all.  Yes, the People make up the Militia, however, the arms are privately owned by Natural Right by the People individually.  The Constitution only guarantees Government will not infringe upon that Right.  Government does NOT grant us these rights.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Pilot1 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> where does the right wing come up with this, propaganda?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution, The Federalist Papers, and many other sources.  Where does the right come up with every lie to take away people's rights?
Click to expand...

But only the Supreme Court has the authority to determine what the Constitution means, including the Second Amendment.

And rights cannot be ‘taken away’ – restrictions placed on rights consistent with Constitutional case law do not ‘take away’ rights; our rights are inalienable, not unlimited.


----------



## Pilot1

[QUOTE="C_Clayton_Jones, post: 19877362, member: 29614
But only the Supreme Court has the authority to determine what the Constitution means, including the Second Amendment.

And rights cannot be ‘taken away’ – restrictions placed on rights consistent with Constitutional case law do not ‘take away’ rights; our rights are inalienable, not unlimited.[/QUOTE]

The Supreme Court has ruled the RKBA guaranteed by the Second Amendment is an Individual Right.  There are already 22,000 laws restricting that right.


----------



## Flopper

Pop23 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If what you write is correct, and they wanted to be taken seriously for generations, and they wanted those generations to understand that the right to keep and bear arms was limited, they could have easily, and without it being controversial as to intent, produced an amendment that read any number of ways:
> 
> Examples being:
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the *Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of *its* *soldiers* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people *in the* *Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people, *while in service of the Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
> 
> or simply
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State must be established.
> 
> None of the above are true, which begs the question. If the intent was that only those that were in such a Militia were to be afforded a right which could not be infringed, why they wouldn't have just said so?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why indeed.  That's the question, isn't it.  The simple fact is, (<comma) if your intent is not to single out the Militia as a setting for firearms, then you have no need of that introductory phrase whatsoever, indeed by putting it in there and in fact leading off with it, you've clouded the issue of what the intent is.  On the other hand if the intent* is* to limit firearms to the context of a Militia, you haven't specifically spelled that out either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The phrase was put in the amendment to gain support of several states strongly committed to a citizen militias for defense of the country.
> 
> The fact is most people had no real interest in the right to bear arms because in those days firearms meant muskets which were lousy for self defense, very inaccurate unless you had a long rifle and were too costly.  About the only real use was in volley firings which is how muskets were commonly used in militias.  The reason for the 2nd amendment 230 years ago and today are completely different.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which, once again, simply begs the question as to why it does not read.......
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the *Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of *its* *soldiers* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people *in the* *Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people, *while in service of the Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
> 
> or simply
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State must be established."
> 
> These were not how the document written.
> 
> Certainly, these Men of such education would have seen that any of the above would have much better accomplish their intent. But for some reason, they didn't, PLUS
> 
> Included it in a position within the document that makes almost zero sense if it had been include as you say it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *To be in a militia you had to own a gun and know how to use it.  The state did not pay for guns or train people to shoot.  So the amendment could not restrict the right to just those in the militia because that implies the state would have to provide the guns as well train people to use them which is exactly what these states were trying to avoid.  They wanted the country defended by volunteers with little or no involvement of the government; that is no new taxes.     *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still do not answer the question. The way to have approached the writing could, and if it supports your point of view, would have been done far differently (see my examples above), and would NOT HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS.
Click to expand...

*To answer your question more specifically, the amendment could not read, "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" simple because the purpose of the amendment was to guarantee citizens the right to bear arms so they could serve in a Militia.  Put another way, the volunteer militia could not survive it people were denied the right to purchase guns.  

Several states such as North Carolina wanted the militias to defend the nation.  They did not want the goverment funding the militias; that is, buying guns, training volunteers and running the organization.  They believed the defense of freedom lay with the individual, not the government.  This turned out to be bat shit crazy but that's what they believed. 

As too why, they put this in Bill Rights, you'll have ask the founders.*


----------



## danielpalos

Pilot1 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Projecting much?  all the right wing does best, is appeal to ignorance of the law.
> 
> The people are the militia.  You are, either; well regulated or unorganized.  *there are no Individual rights, in our Second Article of Amendment*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true at all.  Yes, the People make up the Militia, however, the arms are privately owned by Natural Right by the People individually.  The Constitution only guarantees Government will not infringe upon that Right.  Government does NOT grant us these rights.
Click to expand...

Natural rights are in State Constitutions, not our Second Article of Amendment.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> Pilot1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Projecting much?  all the right wing does best, is appeal to ignorance of the law.
> 
> The people are the militia.  You are, either; well regulated or unorganized.  *there are no Individual rights, in our Second Article of Amendment*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true at all.  Yes, the People make up the Militia, however, the arms are privately owned by Natural Right by the People individually.  The Constitution only guarantees Government will not infringe upon that Right.  Government does NOT grant us these rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Natural rights are in State Constitutions, not our Second Article of Amendment.
Click to expand...


Still spouting this nonsense?    The rights guaranteed by the US Constitution do not comne from state constitutions.   And state constitutions cannot override the US Constitutions.  But any state constitution that violates the US Constitution loses.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pilot1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Projecting much?  all the right wing does best, is appeal to ignorance of the law.
> 
> The people are the militia.  You are, either; well regulated or unorganized.  *there are no Individual rights, in our Second Article of Amendment*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true at all.  Yes, the People make up the Militia, however, the arms are privately owned by Natural Right by the People individually.  The Constitution only guarantees Government will not infringe upon that Right.  Government does NOT grant us these rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Natural rights are in State Constitutions, not our Second Article of Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still spouting this nonsense?    The rights guaranteed by the US Constitution do not comne from state constitutions.   And state constitutions cannot override the US Constitutions.  But any state constitution that violates the US Constitution loses.
Click to expand...

Can you cite where our natural rights are, in our federal Constitution?  I can cite where they are in State Constitutions.  

That is why, it is practically federal doctrine, to question everything about the right wing.   Nobody on the left takes the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional, or otherwise.

Natural rights are available via Due Process, not our Second Article of Amendment.  Article Six, applies.


----------



## Pilot1

Government does not grant us rights.  Did humans have rights prior to the existence of government?  Just because a government may take a right away by force doesn't mean will still don't possess them.


----------



## danielpalos

Pilot1 said:


> Government does not grant us rights.  Did humans have rights prior to the existence of government?  Just because a government may take a right away by force doesn't mean will still don't possess them.


natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.


----------



## Pop23

Flopper said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Why it exists" is indeed the question.  The context is a constitution, which is the framework for how the operation is going to run.  That makes it a simple declaration with no need whatsoever of appealing its arguments.  It has no need at all to "explain why".
> 
> When you sit down to write a constitution, you sweat over every word, since you expect it to be taken seriously by generations.  Therefore no part of what we read can be there by accident.  Many sets of eyes read it and revised it before it got signed.  Therefore it's intentional.  But that lands us in the riddle --- if it's intentional, what then is its function?  No one knows.  It seems to set a _qualification _for the point it eventually gets to.  What is its status in the event that qualification is not met?  We do not know, for we are not told.
> 
> Enigma.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If what you write is correct, and they wanted to be taken seriously for generations, and they wanted those generations to understand that the right to keep and bear arms was limited, they could have easily, and without it being controversial as to intent, produced an amendment that read any number of ways:
> 
> Examples being:
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the *Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of *its* *soldiers* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people *in the* *Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people, *while in service of the Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
> 
> or simply
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State must be established.
> 
> None of the above are true, which begs the question. If the intent was that only those that were in such a Militia were to be afforded a right which could not be infringed, why they wouldn't have just said so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why indeed.  That's the question, isn't it.  The simple fact is, (<comma) if your intent is not to single out the Militia as a setting for firearms, then you have no need of that introductory phrase whatsoever, indeed by putting it in there and in fact leading off with it, you've clouded the issue of what the intent is.  On the other hand if the intent* is* to limit firearms to the context of a Militia, you haven't specifically spelled that out either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The phrase was put in the amendment to gain support of several states strongly committed to a citizen militias for defense of the country.
> 
> The fact is most people had no real interest in the right to bear arms because in those days firearms meant muskets which were lousy for self defense, very inaccurate unless you had a long rifle and were too costly.  About the only real use was in volley firings which is how muskets were commonly used in militias.  The reason for the 2nd amendment 230 years ago and today are completely different.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which, once again, simply begs the question as to why it does not read.......
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the *Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of *its* *soldiers* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people *in the* *Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people, *while in service of the Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
> 
> or simply
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State must be established."
> 
> These were not how the document written.
> 
> Certainly, these Men of such education would have seen that any of the above would have much better accomplish their intent. But for some reason, they didn't, PLUS
> 
> Included it in a position within the document that makes almost zero sense if it had been include as you say it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *To be in a militia you had to own a gun and know how to use it.  The state did not pay for guns or train people to shoot.  So the amendment could not restrict the right to just those in the militia because that implies the state would have to provide the guns as well train people to use them which is exactly what these states were trying to avoid.  They wanted the country defended by volunteers with little or no involvement of the government; that is no new taxes.     *
Click to expand...


Huh?

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of *its* *soldiers* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

How does this require the State provide the weapon? It actually works perfect with what you posted.

or this:

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people *in the* *Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It still make no condition for a State purchase

or this:

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people, *while in service of the Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

Hell, none of the options implies that the state would be responsible as you contend.


----------



## Pilot1

danielpalos said:


> natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.


Natural rights are possessed because we are Human Beings.  With regards to the right to keep, and bear arms, the Federal Constitution guarantees that natural right will not be infringed.  The individual states agreed to abide by the Constitution when they became states.  Any state law restricting this right is unconstitutional as it is solely up to the Feds via the Constitution.


----------



## danielpalos

Pilot1 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.
> 
> 
> 
> Natural rights are possessed because we are Human Beings.  With regards to the right to keep, and bear arms, the Federal Constitution guarantees that natural right will not be infringed.  The individual states agreed to abide by the Constitution when they became states.  Any state law restricting this right is unconstitutional as it is solely up to the Feds via the Constitution.
Click to expand...

There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment; they are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process in our federal Constitution.  

Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of our free States; it is not the unorganized militia of the whole and entire People.


----------



## danielpalos

Pop23 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If what you write is correct, and they wanted to be taken seriously for generations, and they wanted those generations to understand that the right to keep and bear arms was limited, they could have easily, and without it being controversial as to intent, produced an amendment that read any number of ways:
> 
> Examples being:
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the *Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of *its* *soldiers* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people *in the* *Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people, *while in service of the Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
> 
> or simply
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State must be established.
> 
> None of the above are true, which begs the question. If the intent was that only those that were in such a Militia were to be afforded a right which could not be infringed, why they wouldn't have just said so?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why indeed.  That's the question, isn't it.  The simple fact is, (<comma) if your intent is not to single out the Militia as a setting for firearms, then you have no need of that introductory phrase whatsoever, indeed by putting it in there and in fact leading off with it, you've clouded the issue of what the intent is.  On the other hand if the intent* is* to limit firearms to the context of a Militia, you haven't specifically spelled that out either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The phrase was put in the amendment to gain support of several states strongly committed to a citizen militias for defense of the country.
> 
> The fact is most people had no real interest in the right to bear arms because in those days firearms meant muskets which were lousy for self defense, very inaccurate unless you had a long rifle and were too costly.  About the only real use was in volley firings which is how muskets were commonly used in militias.  The reason for the 2nd amendment 230 years ago and today are completely different.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which, once again, simply begs the question as to why it does not read.......
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the *Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of *its* *soldiers* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people *in the* *Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people, *while in service of the Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
> 
> or simply
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State must be established."
> 
> These were not how the document written.
> 
> Certainly, these Men of such education would have seen that any of the above would have much better accomplish their intent. But for some reason, they didn't, PLUS
> 
> Included it in a position within the document that makes almost zero sense if it had been include as you say it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *To be in a militia you had to own a gun and know how to use it.  The state did not pay for guns or train people to shoot.  So the amendment could not restrict the right to just those in the militia because that implies the state would have to provide the guns as well train people to use them which is exactly what these states were trying to avoid.  They wanted the country defended by volunteers with little or no involvement of the government; that is no new taxes.     *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huh?
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of *its* *soldiers* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> How does this require the State provide the weapon? It actually works perfect with what you posted.
> 
> or this:
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people *in the* *Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> It still make no condition for a State purchase
> 
> or this:
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people, *while in service of the Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
> 
> Hell, none of the options implies that the state would be responsible as you contend.
Click to expand...

Why is the right wing allowed to continue with this spam?  The whole and entire People are the Militia.  Only the well regulated subset of the whole and entire militia of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union--when it really really matters.


----------



## there4eyeM

The only arms to which one may have a 'natural right' are the ones that have hands on the ends of them.


----------



## Pop23

danielpalos said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why indeed.  That's the question, isn't it.  The simple fact is, (<comma) if your intent is not to single out the Militia as a setting for firearms, then you have no need of that introductory phrase whatsoever, indeed by putting it in there and in fact leading off with it, you've clouded the issue of what the intent is.  On the other hand if the intent* is* to limit firearms to the context of a Militia, you haven't specifically spelled that out either.
> 
> 
> 
> *The phrase was put in the amendment to gain support of several states strongly committed to a citizen militias for defense of the country.
> 
> The fact is most people had no real interest in the right to bear arms because in those days firearms meant muskets which were lousy for self defense, very inaccurate unless you had a long rifle and were too costly.  About the only real use was in volley firings which is how muskets were commonly used in militias.  The reason for the 2nd amendment 230 years ago and today are completely different.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which, once again, simply begs the question as to why it does not read.......
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the *Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of *its* *soldiers* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people *in the* *Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people, *while in service of the Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
> 
> or simply
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State must be established."
> 
> These were not how the document written.
> 
> Certainly, these Men of such education would have seen that any of the above would have much better accomplish their intent. But for some reason, they didn't, PLUS
> 
> Included it in a position within the document that makes almost zero sense if it had been include as you say it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *To be in a militia you had to own a gun and know how to use it.  The state did not pay for guns or train people to shoot.  So the amendment could not restrict the right to just those in the militia because that implies the state would have to provide the guns as well train people to use them which is exactly what these states were trying to avoid.  They wanted the country defended by volunteers with little or no involvement of the government; that is no new taxes.     *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huh?
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of *its* *soldiers* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> How does this require the State provide the weapon? It actually works perfect with what you posted.
> 
> or this:
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people *in the* *Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> It still make no condition for a State purchase
> 
> or this:
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people, *while in service of the Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
> 
> Hell, none of the options implies that the state would be responsible as you contend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is the right wing allowed to continue with this spam?  The whole and entire People are the Militia.  Only the well regulated subset of the whole and entire militia of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union--when it really really matters.
Click to expand...


Then it would have been written as such. It was not, and no one has been able to confront why, making a simple change, was not included.

The answer as to why is obvious, because that was not the intent.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pilot1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Projecting much?  all the right wing does best, is appeal to ignorance of the law.
> 
> The people are the militia.  You are, either; well regulated or unorganized.  *there are no Individual rights, in our Second Article of Amendment*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true at all.  Yes, the People make up the Militia, however, the arms are privately owned by Natural Right by the People individually.  The Constitution only guarantees Government will not infringe upon that Right.  Government does NOT grant us these rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Natural rights are in State Constitutions, not our Second Article of Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still spouting this nonsense?    The rights guaranteed by the US Constitution do not comne from state constitutions.   And state constitutions cannot override the US Constitutions.  But any state constitution that violates the US Constitution loses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you cite where our natural rights are, in our federal Constitution?  I can cite where they are in State Constitutions.
> 
> That is why, it is practically federal doctrine, to question everything about the right wing.   Nobody on the left takes the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional, or otherwise.
> 
> Natural rights are available via Due Process, not our Second Article of Amendment.  Article Six, applies.
Click to expand...


The Bill of Rights is a good place to start.

And if, as you say, our natural rights are only found in state constitutions, why is the US Constitution the standard by which they are either sllowed or not allowed?

And if, as you say, our rights are found only in state constitutions, it takes a far smaller number of people to remove your rights.  Of course, since those rights are also in the US Constitution, they cannot actually be removed by a single state.


But please, cite where our natural rights are found in state constitutions.  This should be interesting.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> Pilot1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.
> 
> 
> 
> Natural rights are possessed because we are Human Beings.  With regards to the right to keep, and bear arms, the Federal Constitution guarantees that natural right will not be infringed.  The individual states agreed to abide by the Constitution when they became states.  Any state law restricting this right is unconstitutional as it is solely up to the Feds via the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment; they are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process in our federal Constitution.
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of our free States; it is not the unorganized militia of the whole and entire People.
Click to expand...


What Due Process in our federal constitution?   A constitutional amendment?   State constitutions have provisions for amendments too.


----------



## danielpalos

Pop23 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The phrase was put in the amendment to gain support of several states strongly committed to a citizen militias for defense of the country.
> 
> The fact is most people had no real interest in the right to bear arms because in those days firearms meant muskets which were lousy for self defense, very inaccurate unless you had a long rifle and were too costly.  About the only real use was in volley firings which is how muskets were commonly used in militias.  The reason for the 2nd amendment 230 years ago and today are completely different.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which, once again, simply begs the question as to why it does not read.......
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the *Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of *its* *soldiers* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people *in the* *Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people, *while in service of the Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
> 
> or simply
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State must be established."
> 
> These were not how the document written.
> 
> Certainly, these Men of such education would have seen that any of the above would have much better accomplish their intent. But for some reason, they didn't, PLUS
> 
> Included it in a position within the document that makes almost zero sense if it had been include as you say it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *To be in a militia you had to own a gun and know how to use it.  The state did not pay for guns or train people to shoot.  So the amendment could not restrict the right to just those in the militia because that implies the state would have to provide the guns as well train people to use them which is exactly what these states were trying to avoid.  They wanted the country defended by volunteers with little or no involvement of the government; that is no new taxes.     *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huh?
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of *its* *soldiers* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> How does this require the State provide the weapon? It actually works perfect with what you posted.
> 
> or this:
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people *in the* *Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> It still make no condition for a State purchase
> 
> or this:
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people, *while in service of the Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
> 
> Hell, none of the options implies that the state would be responsible as you contend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is the right wing allowed to continue with this spam?  The whole and entire People are the Militia.  Only the well regulated subset of the whole and entire militia of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union--when it really really matters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then it would have been written as such. It was not, and no one has been able to confront why, making a simple change, was not included.
> 
> The answer as to why is obvious, because that was not the intent.
Click to expand...

lol.  that is what it says.  isn't it, obviously, self-evident?

The Militia = the People.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pilot1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Projecting much?  all the right wing does best, is appeal to ignorance of the law.
> 
> The people are the militia.  You are, either; well regulated or unorganized.  *there are no Individual rights, in our Second Article of Amendment*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true at all.  Yes, the People make up the Militia, however, the arms are privately owned by Natural Right by the People individually.  The Constitution only guarantees Government will not infringe upon that Right.  Government does NOT grant us these rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Natural rights are in State Constitutions, not our Second Article of Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still spouting this nonsense?    The rights guaranteed by the US Constitution do not comne from state constitutions.   And state constitutions cannot override the US Constitutions.  But any state constitution that violates the US Constitution loses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you cite where our natural rights are, in our federal Constitution?  I can cite where they are in State Constitutions.
> 
> That is why, it is practically federal doctrine, to question everything about the right wing.   Nobody on the left takes the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional, or otherwise.
> 
> Natural rights are available via Due Process, not our Second Article of Amendment.  Article Six, applies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Bill of Rights is a good place to start.
> 
> And if, as you say, our natural rights are only found in state constitutions, why is the US Constitution the standard by which they are either sllowed or not allowed?
> 
> And if, as you say, our rights are found only in state constitutions, it takes a far smaller number of people to remove your rights.  Of course, since those rights are also in the US Constitution, they cannot actually be removed by a single state.
> 
> 
> But please, cite where our natural rights are found in state constitutions.  This should be interesting.
Click to expand...

nothing but spam.  natural rights are in State Constitutions and available via Due Process, not our Second Amendment.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pilot1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Projecting much?  all the right wing does best, is appeal to ignorance of the law.
> 
> The people are the militia.  You are, either; well regulated or unorganized.  *there are no Individual rights, in our Second Article of Amendment*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true at all.  Yes, the People make up the Militia, however, the arms are privately owned by Natural Right by the People individually.  The Constitution only guarantees Government will not infringe upon that Right.  Government does NOT grant us these rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Natural rights are in State Constitutions, not our Second Article of Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still spouting this nonsense?    The rights guaranteed by the US Constitution do not comne from state constitutions.   And state constitutions cannot override the US Constitutions.  But any state constitution that violates the US Constitution loses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you cite where our natural rights are, in our federal Constitution?  I can cite where they are in State Constitutions.
> 
> That is why, it is practically federal doctrine, to question everything about the right wing.   Nobody on the left takes the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional, or otherwise.
> 
> Natural rights are available via Due Process, not our Second Article of Amendment.  Article Six, applies.
Click to expand...


Also, are you claiming that all 50 states have identical constitutions?   Or do some Americans have more natural rights than other Americans?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pilot1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not true at all.  Yes, the People make up the Militia, however, the arms are privately owned by Natural Right by the People individually.  The Constitution only guarantees Government will not infringe upon that Right.  Government does NOT grant us these rights.
> 
> 
> 
> Natural rights are in State Constitutions, not our Second Article of Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still spouting this nonsense?    The rights guaranteed by the US Constitution do not comne from state constitutions.   And state constitutions cannot override the US Constitutions.  But any state constitution that violates the US Constitution loses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you cite where our natural rights are, in our federal Constitution?  I can cite where they are in State Constitutions.
> 
> That is why, it is practically federal doctrine, to question everything about the right wing.   Nobody on the left takes the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional, or otherwise.
> 
> Natural rights are available via Due Process, not our Second Article of Amendment.  Article Six, applies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Bill of Rights is a good place to start.
> 
> And if, as you say, our natural rights are only found in state constitutions, why is the US Constitution the standard by which they are either sllowed or not allowed?
> 
> And if, as you say, our rights are found only in state constitutions, it takes a far smaller number of people to remove your rights.  Of course, since those rights are also in the US Constitution, they cannot actually be removed by a single state.
> 
> 
> But please, cite where our natural rights are found in state constitutions.  This should be interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nothing but spam.  natural rights are in State Constitutions and available via Due Process, not our Second Amendment.
Click to expand...


You stated "I can cite where they are in State Constitutions".   So please do so.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which, once again, simply begs the question as to why it does not read.......
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the *Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of *its* *soldiers* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people *in the* *Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people, *while in service of the Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
> 
> or simply
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State must be established."
> 
> These were not how the document written.
> 
> Certainly, these Men of such education would have seen that any of the above would have much better accomplish their intent. But for some reason, they didn't, PLUS
> 
> Included it in a position within the document that makes almost zero sense if it had been include as you say it is.
> 
> 
> 
> *To be in a militia you had to own a gun and know how to use it.  The state did not pay for guns or train people to shoot.  So the amendment could not restrict the right to just those in the militia because that implies the state would have to provide the guns as well train people to use them which is exactly what these states were trying to avoid.  They wanted the country defended by volunteers with little or no involvement of the government; that is no new taxes.     *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huh?
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of *its* *soldiers* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> How does this require the State provide the weapon? It actually works perfect with what you posted.
> 
> or this:
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people *in the* *Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> It still make no condition for a State purchase
> 
> or this:
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people, *while in service of the Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
> 
> Hell, none of the options implies that the state would be responsible as you contend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is the right wing allowed to continue with this spam?  The whole and entire People are the Militia.  Only the well regulated subset of the whole and entire militia of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union--when it really really matters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then it would have been written as such. It was not, and no one has been able to confront why, making a simple change, was not included.
> 
> The answer as to why is obvious, because that was not the intent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  that is what it says.  isn't it, obviously, self-evident?
> 
> The Militia = the People.
Click to expand...


The militia is made of of the people.  But all of the people are not necessarily militia.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Natural rights are in State Constitutions, not our Second Article of Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still spouting this nonsense?    The rights guaranteed by the US Constitution do not comne from state constitutions.   And state constitutions cannot override the US Constitutions.  But any state constitution that violates the US Constitution loses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you cite where our natural rights are, in our federal Constitution?  I can cite where they are in State Constitutions.
> 
> That is why, it is practically federal doctrine, to question everything about the right wing.   Nobody on the left takes the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional, or otherwise.
> 
> Natural rights are available via Due Process, not our Second Article of Amendment.  Article Six, applies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Bill of Rights is a good place to start.
> 
> And if, as you say, our natural rights are only found in state constitutions, why is the US Constitution the standard by which they are either sllowed or not allowed?
> 
> And if, as you say, our rights are found only in state constitutions, it takes a far smaller number of people to remove your rights.  Of course, since those rights are also in the US Constitution, they cannot actually be removed by a single state.
> 
> 
> But please, cite where our natural rights are found in state constitutions.  This should be interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nothing but spam.  natural rights are in State Constitutions and available via Due Process, not our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You stated "I can cite where they are in State Constitutions".   So please do so.
Click to expand...

Only the story telling right wing appeals to ignorance of the law, by telling stories; instead of applying, "plain reason and legal axioms."

Article I, Georgia Constitution - Ballotpedia


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *To be in a militia you had to own a gun and know how to use it.  The state did not pay for guns or train people to shoot.  So the amendment could not restrict the right to just those in the militia because that implies the state would have to provide the guns as well train people to use them which is exactly what these states were trying to avoid.  They wanted the country defended by volunteers with little or no involvement of the government; that is no new taxes.     *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of *its* *soldiers* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> How does this require the State provide the weapon? It actually works perfect with what you posted.
> 
> or this:
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people *in the* *Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> It still make no condition for a State purchase
> 
> or this:
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people, *while in service of the Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
> 
> Hell, none of the options implies that the state would be responsible as you contend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is the right wing allowed to continue with this spam?  The whole and entire People are the Militia.  Only the well regulated subset of the whole and entire militia of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union--when it really really matters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then it would have been written as such. It was not, and no one has been able to confront why, making a simple change, was not included.
> 
> The answer as to why is obvious, because that was not the intent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  that is what it says.  isn't it, obviously, self-evident?
> 
> The Militia = the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The militia is made of of the people.  But all of the people are not necessarily militia.
Click to expand...

Your point? Only well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.


----------



## Pop23

danielpalos said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which, once again, simply begs the question as to why it does not read.......
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the *Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of *its* *soldiers* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people *in the* *Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people, *while in service of the Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
> 
> or simply
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State must be established."
> 
> These were not how the document written.
> 
> Certainly, these Men of such education would have seen that any of the above would have much better accomplish their intent. But for some reason, they didn't, PLUS
> 
> Included it in a position within the document that makes almost zero sense if it had been include as you say it is.
> 
> 
> 
> *To be in a militia you had to own a gun and know how to use it.  The state did not pay for guns or train people to shoot.  So the amendment could not restrict the right to just those in the militia because that implies the state would have to provide the guns as well train people to use them which is exactly what these states were trying to avoid.  They wanted the country defended by volunteers with little or no involvement of the government; that is no new taxes.     *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huh?
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of *its* *soldiers* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> How does this require the State provide the weapon? It actually works perfect with what you posted.
> 
> or this:
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people *in the* *Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> It still make no condition for a State purchase
> 
> or this:
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people, *while in service of the Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
> 
> Hell, none of the options implies that the state would be responsible as you contend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is the right wing allowed to continue with this spam?  The whole and entire People are the Militia.  Only the well regulated subset of the whole and entire militia of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union--when it really really matters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then it would have been written as such. It was not, and no one has been able to confront why, making a simple change, was not included.
> 
> The answer as to why is obvious, because that was not the intent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  that is what it says.  isn't it, obviously, self-evident?
> 
> The Militia = the People.
Click to expand...


"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people *in the* *Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Simple, right?


----------



## danielpalos

Pop23 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *To be in a militia you had to own a gun and know how to use it.  The state did not pay for guns or train people to shoot.  So the amendment could not restrict the right to just those in the militia because that implies the state would have to provide the guns as well train people to use them which is exactly what these states were trying to avoid.  They wanted the country defended by volunteers with little or no involvement of the government; that is no new taxes.     *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of *its* *soldiers* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> How does this require the State provide the weapon? It actually works perfect with what you posted.
> 
> or this:
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people *in the* *Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> It still make no condition for a State purchase
> 
> or this:
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people, *while in service of the Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
> 
> Hell, none of the options implies that the state would be responsible as you contend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is the right wing allowed to continue with this spam?  The whole and entire People are the Militia.  Only the well regulated subset of the whole and entire militia of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union--when it really really matters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then it would have been written as such. It was not, and no one has been able to confront why, making a simple change, was not included.
> 
> The answer as to why is obvious, because that was not the intent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  that is what it says.  isn't it, obviously, self-evident?
> 
> The Militia = the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people *in the* *Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> Simple, right?
Click to expand...

The well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.  There is nothing about natural rights, only civil rights.


----------



## Pop23

danielpalos said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of *its* *soldiers* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> How does this require the State provide the weapon? It actually works perfect with what you posted.
> 
> or this:
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people *in the* *Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> It still make no condition for a State purchase
> 
> or this:
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people, *while in service of the Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
> 
> Hell, none of the options implies that the state would be responsible as you contend.
> 
> 
> 
> Why is the right wing allowed to continue with this spam?  The whole and entire People are the Militia.  Only the well regulated subset of the whole and entire militia of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union--when it really really matters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then it would have been written as such. It was not, and no one has been able to confront why, making a simple change, was not included.
> 
> The answer as to why is obvious, because that was not the intent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  that is what it says.  isn't it, obviously, self-evident?
> 
> The Militia = the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people *in the* *Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> Simple, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.  There is nothing about natural rights, only civil rights.
Click to expand...


You'll have to talk to someone else about natural rights, I'm talking about the English language, something you seem to struggle with.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street

Pilot1 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> where does the right wing come up with this, propaganda?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution, The Federalist Papers, and many other sources.  Where does the right come up with every lie to take away people's rights?
Click to expand...

*Wags Wearing Wigs*

Free people should establish their own rights; they should not be slaves to the anti-democratic elite of Eighteenth Century America.  So this whole discussion begs the question by assuming that we get our rights from the Constitution just because the ruling class tells us we do.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

The Sage of Main Street said:


> Pilot1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> where does the right wing come up with this, propaganda?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution, The Federalist Papers, and many other sources.  Where does the right come up with every lie to take away people's rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Wags Wearing Wigs*
> 
> Free people should establish their own rights; they should not be slaves to the anti-democratic elite of Eighteenth Century America.  So this whole discussion begs the question by assuming that we get our rights from the Constitution just because the ruling class tells us we do.
Click to expand...

Our rights are inalienable,  they can neither taken nor bestowed by any government,  constitution, or man.

Although inalienable, our rights are not absolute, they are subject to restrictions by government. 

The Constitution's case law instructs lawmakers as to what laws they may enact, and what laws they may not enact, which would be laws repugnant to the Constitution.


----------



## danielpalos

Pop23 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is the right wing allowed to continue with this spam?  The whole and entire People are the Militia.  Only the well regulated subset of the whole and entire militia of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union--when it really really matters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then it would have been written as such. It was not, and no one has been able to confront why, making a simple change, was not included.
> 
> The answer as to why is obvious, because that was not the intent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  that is what it says.  isn't it, obviously, self-evident?
> 
> The Militia = the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people *in the* *Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> Simple, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.  There is nothing about natural rights, only civil rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'll have to talk to someone else about natural rights, I'm talking about the English language, something you seem to struggle with.
Click to expand...

Clueless and Causeless?  Most of the right wing, is.


----------



## danielpalos

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pilot1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> where does the right wing come up with this, propaganda?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution, The Federalist Papers, and many other sources.  Where does the right come up with every lie to take away people's rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Wags Wearing Wigs*
> 
> Free people should establish their own rights; they should not be slaves to the anti-democratic elite of Eighteenth Century America.  So this whole discussion begs the question by assuming that we get our rights from the Constitution just because the ruling class tells us we do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our rights are inalienable,  they can neither taken nor bestowed by any government,  constitution, or man.
> 
> Although inalienable, our rights are not absolute, they are subject to restrictions by government.
> 
> The Constitution's case law instructs lawmakers as to what laws they may enact, and what laws they may not enact, which would be laws repugnant to the Constitution.
Click to expand...

that is the whole point; our federal Constitution is Express, not Implied.  

Natural rights are recognized (in law), and secured (by law), in State Constitutions; and, available in our federal Constitution via Due Process, not our Second Article of Amendment, specifically.


----------



## Pop23

danielpalos said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then it would have been written as such. It was not, and no one has been able to confront why, making a simple change, was not included.
> 
> The answer as to why is obvious, because that was not the intent.
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  that is what it says.  isn't it, obviously, self-evident?
> 
> The Militia = the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people *in the* *Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> Simple, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.  There is nothing about natural rights, only civil rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'll have to talk to someone else about natural rights, I'm talking about the English language, something you seem to struggle with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clueless and Causeless?  Most of the right wing, is.
Click to expand...


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of *its* *soldiers* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> How does this require the State provide the weapon? It actually works perfect with what you posted.
> 
> or this:
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people *in the* *Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> It still make no condition for a State purchase
> 
> or this:
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people, *while in service of the Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
> 
> Hell, none of the options implies that the state would be responsible as you contend.
> 
> 
> 
> Why is the right wing allowed to continue with this spam?  The whole and entire People are the Militia.  Only the well regulated subset of the whole and entire militia of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union--when it really really matters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then it would have been written as such. It was not, and no one has been able to confront why, making a simple change, was not included.
> 
> The answer as to why is obvious, because that was not the intent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  that is what it says.  isn't it, obviously, self-evident?
> 
> The Militia = the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people *in the* *Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> Simple, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.  There is nothing about natural rights, only civil rights.
Click to expand...


So natural rights are not civil rights?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is the right wing allowed to continue with this spam?  The whole and entire People are the Militia.  Only the well regulated subset of the whole and entire militia of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union--when it really really matters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then it would have been written as such. It was not, and no one has been able to confront why, making a simple change, was not included.
> 
> The answer as to why is obvious, because that was not the intent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  that is what it says.  isn't it, obviously, self-evident?
> 
> The Militia = the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people *in the* *Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> Simple, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.  There is nothing about natural rights, only civil rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So natural rights are not civil rights?
Click to expand...

no, they are not.  only the right wing is that clueless and that Causeless.


----------



## Flopper

Pop23 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If what you write is correct, and they wanted to be taken seriously for generations, and they wanted those generations to understand that the right to keep and bear arms was limited, they could have easily, and without it being controversial as to intent, produced an amendment that read any number of ways:
> 
> Examples being:
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the *Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of *its* *soldiers* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people *in the* *Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people, *while in service of the Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
> 
> or simply
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State must be established.
> 
> None of the above are true, which begs the question. If the intent was that only those that were in such a Militia were to be afforded a right which could not be infringed, why they wouldn't have just said so?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why indeed.  That's the question, isn't it.  The simple fact is, (<comma) if your intent is not to single out the Militia as a setting for firearms, then you have no need of that introductory phrase whatsoever, indeed by putting it in there and in fact leading off with it, you've clouded the issue of what the intent is.  On the other hand if the intent* is* to limit firearms to the context of a Militia, you haven't specifically spelled that out either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The phrase was put in the amendment to gain support of several states strongly committed to a citizen militias for defense of the country.
> 
> The fact is most people had no real interest in the right to bear arms because in those days firearms meant muskets which were lousy for self defense, very inaccurate unless you had a long rifle and were too costly.  About the only real use was in volley firings which is how muskets were commonly used in militias.  The reason for the 2nd amendment 230 years ago and today are completely different.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which, once again, simply begs the question as to why it does not read.......
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the *Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of *its* *soldiers* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people *in the* *Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people, *while in service of the Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
> 
> or simply
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State must be established."
> 
> These were not how the document written.
> 
> Certainly, these Men of such education would have seen that any of the above would have much better accomplish their intent. But for some reason, they didn't, PLUS
> 
> Included it in a position within the document that makes almost zero sense if it had been include as you say it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *To be in a militia you had to own a gun and know how to use it.  The state did not pay for guns or train people to shoot.  So the amendment could not restrict the right to just those in the militia because that implies the state would have to provide the guns as well train people to use them which is exactly what these states were trying to avoid.  They wanted the country defended by volunteers with little or no involvement of the government; that is no new taxes.     *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huh?
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of *its* *soldiers* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> How does this require the State provide the weapon? It actually works perfect with what you posted.
> 
> or this:
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people *in the* *Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> It still make no condition for a State purchase
> 
> or this:
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people, *while in service of the Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
> 
> Hell, none of the options implies that the state would be responsible as you contend.
Click to expand...

*To become a member of a militia at that time, you had to own a gun.  Giving members the right to carry firearms does not solve the problem since potential members had to own a gun and be able to use it in order to become a member.  *


----------



## Flopper

danielpalos said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which, once again, simply begs the question as to why it does not read.......
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the *Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of *its* *soldiers* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people *in the* *Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people, *while in service of the Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
> 
> or simply
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State must be established."
> 
> These were not how the document written.
> 
> Certainly, these Men of such education would have seen that any of the above would have much better accomplish their intent. But for some reason, they didn't, PLUS
> 
> Included it in a position within the document that makes almost zero sense if it had been include as you say it is.
> 
> 
> 
> *To be in a militia you had to own a gun and know how to use it.  The state did not pay for guns or train people to shoot.  So the amendment could not restrict the right to just those in the militia because that implies the state would have to provide the guns as well train people to use them which is exactly what these states were trying to avoid.  They wanted the country defended by volunteers with little or no involvement of the government; that is no new taxes.     *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huh?
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of *its* *soldiers* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> How does this require the State provide the weapon? It actually works perfect with what you posted.
> 
> or this:
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people *in the* *Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> It still make no condition for a State purchase
> 
> or this:
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people, *while in service of the Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
> 
> Hell, none of the options implies that the state would be responsible as you contend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is the right wing allowed to continue with this spam?  The whole and entire People are the Militia.  Only the well regulated subset of the whole and entire militia of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union--when it really really matters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then it would have been written as such. It was not, and no one has been able to confront why, making a simple change, was not included.
> 
> The answer as to why is obvious, because that was not the intent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  that is what it says.  isn't it, obviously, self-evident?
> 
> The Militia = the People.
Click to expand...

*No, the militia was not the people.  As define in Websters 1828 Dictionary a militia is "the body of soldiers in a state enrolled for discipline, but not engaged in actual service except in emergencies; as distinguished from regular troops, whose sole occupation is war or military service."

Supporters of the militia were quick to claim that every able body man with a firearm should be a member of the militia.  However claiming the militia is synonymous with the people is going way out into left field.*
*Websters Dictionary 1828 - Webster's Dictionary 1828 - Militia*


----------



## Pop23

Flopper said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why indeed.  That's the question, isn't it.  The simple fact is, (<comma) if your intent is not to single out the Militia as a setting for firearms, then you have no need of that introductory phrase whatsoever, indeed by putting it in there and in fact leading off with it, you've clouded the issue of what the intent is.  On the other hand if the intent* is* to limit firearms to the context of a Militia, you haven't specifically spelled that out either.
> 
> 
> 
> *The phrase was put in the amendment to gain support of several states strongly committed to a citizen militias for defense of the country.
> 
> The fact is most people had no real interest in the right to bear arms because in those days firearms meant muskets which were lousy for self defense, very inaccurate unless you had a long rifle and were too costly.  About the only real use was in volley firings which is how muskets were commonly used in militias.  The reason for the 2nd amendment 230 years ago and today are completely different.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which, once again, simply begs the question as to why it does not read.......
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the *Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of *its* *soldiers* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people *in the* *Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people, *while in service of the Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
> 
> or simply
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State must be established."
> 
> These were not how the document written.
> 
> Certainly, these Men of such education would have seen that any of the above would have much better accomplish their intent. But for some reason, they didn't, PLUS
> 
> Included it in a position within the document that makes almost zero sense if it had been include as you say it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *To be in a militia you had to own a gun and know how to use it.  The state did not pay for guns or train people to shoot.  So the amendment could not restrict the right to just those in the militia because that implies the state would have to provide the guns as well train people to use them which is exactly what these states were trying to avoid.  They wanted the country defended by volunteers with little or no involvement of the government; that is no new taxes.     *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huh?
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of *its* *soldiers* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> How does this require the State provide the weapon? It actually works perfect with what you posted.
> 
> or this:
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people *in the* *Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> It still make no condition for a State purchase
> 
> or this:
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people, *while in service of the Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
> 
> Hell, none of the options implies that the state would be responsible as you contend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *To become a member of a militia at that time, you had to own a gun.  Giving members the right to carry firearms does not solve the problem since potential members had to own a gun and be able to use it in order to become a member.  *
Click to expand...


BUT YOU HAD TO OWN A GUN! Nothing in my example would make the State responsible for the COST OF THE GUN!


----------



## Pop23

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is the right wing allowed to continue with this spam?  The whole and entire People are the Militia.  Only the well regulated subset of the whole and entire militia of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union--when it really really matters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then it would have been written as such. It was not, and no one has been able to confront why, making a simple change, was not included.
> 
> The answer as to why is obvious, because that was not the intent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  that is what it says.  isn't it, obviously, self-evident?
> 
> The Militia = the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people *in the* *Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> Simple, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.  There is nothing about natural rights, only civil rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So natural rights are not civil rights?
Click to expand...


I guess we weren't born equal? I'll have to think about that, kind of changes everything.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Daryl Hunt said:


> *Militia Act of 1792*
> _Every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack._


Nothing about that statute limits or prohibits the right to possess arms, nor is it intended to do so.  

Every citizen as a duty under the above statue.  

That's all it says and means.  Nothing more.



Daryl Hunt said:


> There were two rebellions that made the Militia Act of 1792 to be written and adopted. The Shays Rebellion of 1786-1787 and the Whiskey Rebellion 1791-1794. While neither amounted to much, the founding fathers were scared to death that something else might come up that might endanger the newly formed Government so they adopted the 2nd Amendment as it was written since there was no Standing Army to prevent any decent resurrection from becoming successful. It was left up to each state individually to provide the militias to prevent it from happening. As long as the states agreed and didn't go to war with each other.


The 2nd Amendment, like the other 10 Amendments in the bill of rights, was included to ease the fears of the population by prohibiting the federal government from passing laws restricting the inalienable right.

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them."
_Zachariah Johnson_
Elliot's Debates, vol. 3 "The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution."

"… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms"
_Philadelphia Federal Gazette_
June 18, 1789, Pg. 2, Col. 2
Article on the Bill of Rights

"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"

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
_George Washington_
First President of the United States

"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_
American Statesman, 1788

"The great object is that every man be armed." and "Everyone who is able may have a gun."
_Patrick Henry_
American Patriot




Daryl Hunt said:


> Using the original definition, if you don't own your House, Farm or Business and you don't completely and blindly support our current Government then are not a Citizen in Good Standings and will not be afforded the right to own, posses or carry any form of Firearms. Oh, and you must be a Free White Male as well.


Cite the federal statutes to which you are referring.  I can't find anything.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Flopper said:


> *No, the militia was not the people. As define in Websters 1828 Dictionary a militia is "the body of soldiers in a state enrolled for discipline, but not engaged in actual service except in emergencies; as distinguished from regular troops, whose sole occupation is war or military service."
> 
> Supporters of the militia were quick to claim that every able body man with a firearm should be a member of the militia. However claiming the militia is synonymous with the people is going way out into left field.*
> *Websters Dictionary 1828 - Webster's Dictionary 1828 - Militia*


"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
_George Mason_
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …"
_Richard Henry Lee_
writing in _Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic_, Letter XVIII, May, 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


----------



## danielpalos

Flopper said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why indeed.  That's the question, isn't it.  The simple fact is, (<comma) if your intent is not to single out the Militia as a setting for firearms, then you have no need of that introductory phrase whatsoever, indeed by putting it in there and in fact leading off with it, you've clouded the issue of what the intent is.  On the other hand if the intent* is* to limit firearms to the context of a Militia, you haven't specifically spelled that out either.
> 
> 
> 
> *The phrase was put in the amendment to gain support of several states strongly committed to a citizen militias for defense of the country.
> 
> The fact is most people had no real interest in the right to bear arms because in those days firearms meant muskets which were lousy for self defense, very inaccurate unless you had a long rifle and were too costly.  About the only real use was in volley firings which is how muskets were commonly used in militias.  The reason for the 2nd amendment 230 years ago and today are completely different.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which, once again, simply begs the question as to why it does not read.......
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the *Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of *its* *soldiers* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people *in the* *Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people, *while in service of the Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
> 
> or simply
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State must be established."
> 
> These were not how the document written.
> 
> Certainly, these Men of such education would have seen that any of the above would have much better accomplish their intent. But for some reason, they didn't, PLUS
> 
> Included it in a position within the document that makes almost zero sense if it had been include as you say it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *To be in a militia you had to own a gun and know how to use it.  The state did not pay for guns or train people to shoot.  So the amendment could not restrict the right to just those in the militia because that implies the state would have to provide the guns as well train people to use them which is exactly what these states were trying to avoid.  They wanted the country defended by volunteers with little or no involvement of the government; that is no new taxes.     *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huh?
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of *its* *soldiers* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> How does this require the State provide the weapon? It actually works perfect with what you posted.
> 
> or this:
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people *in the* *Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> It still make no condition for a State purchase
> 
> or this:
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people, *while in service of the Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
> 
> Hell, none of the options implies that the state would be responsible as you contend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *To become a member of a militia at that time, you had to own a gun.  Giving members the right to carry firearms does not solve the problem since potential members had to own a gun and be able to use it in order to become a member.  *
Click to expand...




Flopper said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *To be in a militia you had to own a gun and know how to use it.  The state did not pay for guns or train people to shoot.  So the amendment could not restrict the right to just those in the militia because that implies the state would have to provide the guns as well train people to use them which is exactly what these states were trying to avoid.  They wanted the country defended by volunteers with little or no involvement of the government; that is no new taxes.     *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of *its* *soldiers* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> How does this require the State provide the weapon? It actually works perfect with what you posted.
> 
> or this:
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people *in the* *Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> It still make no condition for a State purchase
> 
> or this:
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people, *while in service of the Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
> 
> Hell, none of the options implies that the state would be responsible as you contend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is the right wing allowed to continue with this spam?  The whole and entire People are the Militia.  Only the well regulated subset of the whole and entire militia of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union--when it really really matters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then it would have been written as such. It was not, and no one has been able to confront why, making a simple change, was not included.
> 
> The answer as to why is obvious, because that was not the intent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  that is what it says.  isn't it, obviously, self-evident?
> 
> The Militia = the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *No, the militia was not the people.  As define in Websters 1828 Dictionary a militia is "the body of soldiers in a state enrolled for discipline, but not engaged in actual service except in emergencies; as distinguished from regular troops, whose sole occupation is war or military service."
> 
> Supporters of the militia were quick to claim that every able body man with a firearm should be a member of the militia.  However claiming the militia is synonymous with the people is going way out into left field.*
> *Websters Dictionary 1828 - Webster's Dictionary 1828 - Militia*
Click to expand...

resorting to a dictionary is, begging the question regarding our specific form of Government.

why should i believe Your, misapplied definition?

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
*— George Mason*_, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788_


----------



## Flopper

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is the right wing allowed to continue with this spam?  The whole and entire People are the Militia.  Only the well regulated subset of the whole and entire militia of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union--when it really really matters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then it would have been written as such. It was not, and no one has been able to confront why, making a simple change, was not included.
> 
> The answer as to why is obvious, because that was not the intent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  that is what it says.  isn't it, obviously, self-evident?
> 
> The Militia = the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people *in the* *Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> Simple, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.  There is nothing about natural rights, only civil rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So natural rights are not civil rights?
Click to expand...

*No, civil rights are legal rights.  Some people may claim they are natural rights but that's a real stretch.

Natural rights are those that are not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture or government, and so are universal and inalienable; that is they cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws.  Or as John Locke defined them, natural rights are privileges and basic freedoms people are entitled to simply because they exist.
*
*Natural rights become legal rights only when incorporated into the law.  For example the Bill of Rights gives legal force to some our most important natural rights.   Natural rights can only be enforced if they become legal rights. *


----------



## danielpalos

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process in our federal Constitution.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then it would have been written as such. It was not, and no one has been able to confront why, making a simple change, was not included.
> 
> The answer as to why is obvious, because that was not the intent.
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  that is what it says.  isn't it, obviously, self-evident?
> 
> The Militia = the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people *in the* *Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> Simple, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.  There is nothing about natural rights, only civil rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So natural rights are not civil rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, they are not.  only the right wing is that clueless and that Causeless.
Click to expand...


What is the difference, in your opinion?


----------



## Flopper

danielpalos said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The phrase was put in the amendment to gain support of several states strongly committed to a citizen militias for defense of the country.
> 
> The fact is most people had no real interest in the right to bear arms because in those days firearms meant muskets which were lousy for self defense, very inaccurate unless you had a long rifle and were too costly.  About the only real use was in volley firings which is how muskets were commonly used in militias.  The reason for the 2nd amendment 230 years ago and today are completely different.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which, once again, simply begs the question as to why it does not read.......
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the *Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of *its* *soldiers* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people *in the* *Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people, *while in service of the Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
> 
> or simply
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State must be established."
> 
> These were not how the document written.
> 
> Certainly, these Men of such education would have seen that any of the above would have much better accomplish their intent. But for some reason, they didn't, PLUS
> 
> Included it in a position within the document that makes almost zero sense if it had been include as you say it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *To be in a militia you had to own a gun and know how to use it.  The state did not pay for guns or train people to shoot.  So the amendment could not restrict the right to just those in the militia because that implies the state would have to provide the guns as well train people to use them which is exactly what these states were trying to avoid.  They wanted the country defended by volunteers with little or no involvement of the government; that is no new taxes.     *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huh?
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of *its* *soldiers* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> How does this require the State provide the weapon? It actually works perfect with what you posted.
> 
> or this:
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people *in the* *Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> It still make no condition for a State purchase
> 
> or this:
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people, *while in service of the Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
> 
> Hell, none of the options implies that the state would be responsible as you contend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *To become a member of a militia at that time, you had to own a gun.  Giving members the right to carry firearms does not solve the problem since potential members had to own a gun and be able to use it in order to become a member.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of *its* *soldiers* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> How does this require the State provide the weapon? It actually works perfect with what you posted.
> 
> or this:
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people *in the* *Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> It still make no condition for a State purchase
> 
> or this:
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people, *while in service of the Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
> 
> Hell, none of the options implies that the state would be responsible as you contend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is the right wing allowed to continue with this spam?  The whole and entire People are the Militia.  Only the well regulated subset of the whole and entire militia of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union--when it really really matters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then it would have been written as such. It was not, and no one has been able to confront why, making a simple change, was not included.
> 
> The answer as to why is obvious, because that was not the intent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  that is what it says.  isn't it, obviously, self-evident?
> 
> The Militia = the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *No, the militia was not the people.  As define in Websters 1828 Dictionary a militia is "the body of soldiers in a state enrolled for discipline, but not engaged in actual service except in emergencies; as distinguished from regular troops, whose sole occupation is war or military service."
> 
> Supporters of the militia were quick to claim that every able body man with a firearm should be a member of the militia.  However claiming the militia is synonymous with the people is going way out into left field.*
> *Websters Dictionary 1828 - Webster's Dictionary 1828 - Militia*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> resorting to a dictionary is, begging the question regarding our specific form of Government.
> 
> why should i believe Your, misapplied definition?
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> *— George Mason*_, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788_
Click to expand...

*Putting your quote in context,
"Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table [the Constitution] gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor."  If you read on it becomes quite clear that Mason's primary concern was the future of the militia, not the right to bear arms.  Without the guarantee in the 2nd amendment, the size and composition of the militia of the future may be reduced.  Mason was justifying the reason for "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms".  And that reason was the militia.

Today, we do not depend on militias for defense of the nation as in 1776.  One might argue today that the right to bear arms is needed for self protection or to overthrow a government we no longer support but certainly not to defend the nation.  The reason stated in the amendment for the guaranteeing the right bear arms simple no longer exists.   

Rewriting the Second Amendment - Stephen P. Halbrook, Ph.D.*


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process in our federal Constitution.



Not according to Flopper in post #612.  

*"Natural rights are those that are not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture or government, and so are universal and inalienable; that is they cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws. Or as John Locke defined them, natural rights are privileges and basic freedoms people are entitled to simply because they exist"*
If this is the case, how can they come from state constitutions?

*"Natural rights become legal rights only when incorporated into the law. For example the Bill of Rights gives legal force to some our most important natural rights. Natural rights can only be enforced if they become legal rights"*
According to Flopper, the Bill of Rights gives legal force to some of our most important legal rights.  But you say the US Constitution does not do that.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The phrase was put in the amendment to gain support of several states strongly committed to a citizen militias for defense of the country.
> 
> The fact is most people had no real interest in the right to bear arms because in those days firearms meant muskets which were lousy for self defense, very inaccurate unless you had a long rifle and were too costly.  About the only real use was in volley firings which is how muskets were commonly used in militias.  The reason for the 2nd amendment 230 years ago and today are completely different.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which, once again, simply begs the question as to why it does not read.......
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the *Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of *its* *soldiers* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people *in the* *Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people, *while in service of the Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
> 
> or simply
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State must be established."
> 
> These were not how the document written.
> 
> Certainly, these Men of such education would have seen that any of the above would have much better accomplish their intent. But for some reason, they didn't, PLUS
> 
> Included it in a position within the document that makes almost zero sense if it had been include as you say it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *To be in a militia you had to own a gun and know how to use it.  The state did not pay for guns or train people to shoot.  So the amendment could not restrict the right to just those in the militia because that implies the state would have to provide the guns as well train people to use them which is exactly what these states were trying to avoid.  They wanted the country defended by volunteers with little or no involvement of the government; that is no new taxes.     *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huh?
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of *its* *soldiers* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> How does this require the State provide the weapon? It actually works perfect with what you posted.
> 
> or this:
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people *in the* *Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> It still make no condition for a State purchase
> 
> or this:
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people, *while in service of the Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
> 
> Hell, none of the options implies that the state would be responsible as you contend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *To become a member of a militia at that time, you had to own a gun.  Giving members the right to carry firearms does not solve the problem since potential members had to own a gun and be able to use it in order to become a member.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of *its* *soldiers* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> How does this require the State provide the weapon? It actually works perfect with what you posted.
> 
> or this:
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people *in the* *Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> It still make no condition for a State purchase
> 
> or this:
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people, *while in service of the Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
> 
> Hell, none of the options implies that the state would be responsible as you contend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is the right wing allowed to continue with this spam?  The whole and entire People are the Militia.  Only the well regulated subset of the whole and entire militia of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union--when it really really matters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then it would have been written as such. It was not, and no one has been able to confront why, making a simple change, was not included.
> 
> The answer as to why is obvious, because that was not the intent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  that is what it says.  isn't it, obviously, self-evident?
> 
> The Militia = the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *No, the militia was not the people.  As define in Websters 1828 Dictionary a militia is "the body of soldiers in a state enrolled for discipline, but not engaged in actual service except in emergencies; as distinguished from regular troops, whose sole occupation is war or military service."
> 
> Supporters of the militia were quick to claim that every able body man with a firearm should be a member of the militia.  However claiming the militia is synonymous with the people is going way out into left field.*
> *Websters Dictionary 1828 - Webster's Dictionary 1828 - Militia*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> resorting to a dictionary is, begging the question regarding our specific form of Government.
> 
> why should i believe Your, misapplied definition?
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> *— George Mason*_, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788_
Click to expand...


Ok, so you spent numerous pages demanding that the dictionary be used for the definition of "people" and extrapolated that it also meant "collective.  But now the dictionary may be misapplied?    Hmmmm    Sounds like hypocrisy to me.


----------



## Flopper

danielpalos said:


> Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process in our federal Constitution.


*In the US Constitution, many of our most important natural rights are explicitly stated in the Bill Rights.  I'll have to take your word on the state constitutions as I'm not familiar with them.*


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  that is what it says.  isn't it, obviously, self-evident?
> 
> The Militia = the People.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people *in the* *Militia* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> Simple, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.  There is nothing about natural rights, only civil rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So natural rights are not civil rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, they are not.  only the right wing is that clueless and that Causeless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is the difference, in your opinion?
Click to expand...

Civil rights are Expressed in our federal Constitution; natural rights are Recognized and secured in State Constitutions.


----------



## danielpalos

Flopper said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process in our federal Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> *In the US Constitution, many of our most important natural rights are explicitly stated in the Bill Rights.  I'll have to take your word on the state constitutions as I'm not familiar with them.*
Click to expand...

Code law merely codifies civil rights.


----------



## Pop23

danielpalos said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process in our federal Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> *In the US Constitution, many of our most important natural rights are explicitly stated in the Bill Rights.  I'll have to take your word on the state constitutions as I'm not familiar with them.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Code law merely codifies civil rights.
Click to expand...


You have a tough time making Friends, huh?


----------



## Flopper

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process in our federal Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not according to Flopper in post #612.
> 
> *"Natural rights are those that are not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture or government, and so are universal and inalienable; that is they cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws. Or as John Locke defined them, natural rights are privileges and basic freedoms people are entitled to simply because they exist"*
> If this is the case, how can they come from state constitutions?
> 
> *"Natural rights become legal rights only when incorporated into the law. For example the Bill of Rights gives legal force to some our most important natural rights. Natural rights can only be enforced if they become legal rights"*
> According to Flopper, the Bill of Rights gives legal force to some of our most important legal rights.  But you say the US Constitution does not do that.
Click to expand...

*I think he has it backward.  The due process clause in the 14th amendment was used to extend most of the guarantees of the Bill of Rights to state governments.  For example, the 1st amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.."  The Supreme Court used the due process clause of the 14th amendment to override state laws establishing a state religion.

Natural Rights without corresponding legal rights are unenforceable and basically philosophical.  However, most of what is considered to be natural rights is covered by either the US Constitution, US statues, state constitutions, or state statues.   In other words, the legal system has got you covered.*


----------



## danielpalos

Pop23 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process in our federal Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> *In the US Constitution, many of our most important natural rights are explicitly stated in the Bill Rights.  I'll have to take your word on the state constitutions as I'm not familiar with them.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Code law merely codifies civil rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have a tough time making Friends, huh?
Click to expand...

usually for free, under Any form of Capitalism.


----------



## danielpalos

Flopper said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process in our federal Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not according to Flopper in post #612.
> 
> *"Natural rights are those that are not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture or government, and so are universal and inalienable; that is they cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws. Or as John Locke defined them, natural rights are privileges and basic freedoms people are entitled to simply because they exist"*
> If this is the case, how can they come from state constitutions?
> 
> *"Natural rights become legal rights only when incorporated into the law. For example the Bill of Rights gives legal force to some our most important natural rights. Natural rights can only be enforced if they become legal rights"*
> According to Flopper, the Bill of Rights gives legal force to some of our most important legal rights.  But you say the US Constitution does not do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I think he has it backward.  The due process clause in the 14th amendment was used to extend most of the guarantees of the Bill of Rights to state governments.  For example, the 1st amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.."  The Supreme Court used the due process clause of the 14th amendment to override state laws establishing a state religion.
> 
> Natural Rights without corresponding legal rights are unenforceable and basically philosophical.  However, most of what is considered to be natural rights is covered by either the US Constitution, US statues, state constitutions, or state statues.   In other words, the legal system has got you covered.*
Click to expand...

Civil rights are not, Individual rights even thought they apply to individuals.


----------



## Flopper

danielpalos said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process in our federal Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not according to Flopper in post #612.
> 
> *"Natural rights are those that are not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture or government, and so are universal and inalienable; that is they cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws. Or as John Locke defined them, natural rights are privileges and basic freedoms people are entitled to simply because they exist"*
> If this is the case, how can they come from state constitutions?
> 
> *"Natural rights become legal rights only when incorporated into the law. For example the Bill of Rights gives legal force to some our most important natural rights. Natural rights can only be enforced if they become legal rights"*
> According to Flopper, the Bill of Rights gives legal force to some of our most important legal rights.  But you say the US Constitution does not do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I think he has it backward.  The due process clause in the 14th amendment was used to extend most of the guarantees of the Bill of Rights to state governments.  For example, the 1st amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.."  The Supreme Court used the due process clause of the 14th amendment to override state laws establishing a state religion.
> 
> Natural Rights without corresponding legal rights are unenforceable and basically philosophical.  However, most of what is considered to be natural rights is covered by either the US Constitution, US statues, state constitutions, or state statues.   In other words, the legal system has got you covered.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Civil rights are not, Individual rights even thought they apply to individuals.
Click to expand...

*Why would civil rights not be an individual right?*


----------



## danielpalos

Flopper said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process in our federal Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not according to Flopper in post #612.
> 
> *"Natural rights are those that are not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture or government, and so are universal and inalienable; that is they cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws. Or as John Locke defined them, natural rights are privileges and basic freedoms people are entitled to simply because they exist"*
> If this is the case, how can they come from state constitutions?
> 
> *"Natural rights become legal rights only when incorporated into the law. For example the Bill of Rights gives legal force to some our most important natural rights. Natural rights can only be enforced if they become legal rights"*
> According to Flopper, the Bill of Rights gives legal force to some of our most important legal rights.  But you say the US Constitution does not do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I think he has it backward.  The due process clause in the 14th amendment was used to extend most of the guarantees of the Bill of Rights to state governments.  For example, the 1st amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.."  The Supreme Court used the due process clause of the 14th amendment to override state laws establishing a state religion.
> 
> Natural Rights without corresponding legal rights are unenforceable and basically philosophical.  However, most of what is considered to be natural rights is covered by either the US Constitution, US statues, state constitutions, or state statues.   In other words, the legal system has got you covered.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Civil rights are not, Individual rights even thought they apply to individuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Why would civil rights not be an individual right?*
Click to expand...

The terms.  Our social Contract is full of contractual terms.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Flopper said:


> Natural rights are those that are not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture or government, and so are universal and inalienable;


So, natural rights are inalienable and universal but...


Flopper said:


> Natural rights become legal rights only when incorporated into the law. For example the Bill of Rights gives legal force to some our most important natural rights. Natural rights can only be enforced if they become legal rights.


What happened to the inalienable part?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Flopper said:


> I think he has it backward. The due process clause in the 14th amendment was used to extend most of the guarantees of the Bill of Rights to state governments. For example, the 1st amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.." The Supreme Court used the due process clause of the 14th amendment to override state laws establishing a state religion.


It was the privileges and immunities clause, not due process.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Flopper said:


> Natural Rights without corresponding legal rights are *unenforceable *and basically *philosophical*. However, most of what is considered to be natural rights is covered by either the US Constitution, US statues, state constitutions, or state statues. In other words, the legal system has got you covered.


If they are inalienable, they are enforceable.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

*inalienable*

[in-eyl-yuh-nuh-buh l, -ey-lee-uh-]

Synonyms
Examples
Word Origin
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
adjective
1.
not transferable to another or not capable of being taken away or denied; not alienable :
inalienable rights, freedoms, and liberties; aninalienable territory; inalienable principles andvalues.

the definition of inalienable


----------



## danielpalos

Good thing we have a Second Amendment as a Prohibition on Government propaganda and rhetoric.

the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be Infringed.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> Good thing we have a Second Amendment as a Prohibition on Government propaganda and rhetoric.
> 
> the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be Infringed.



If you want to take up arms against the gov't over propaganda and rhetoric, go right ahead.   Prison is going to be rough.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good thing we have a Second Amendment as a Prohibition on Government propaganda and rhetoric.
> 
> the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be Infringed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to take up arms against the gov't over propaganda and rhetoric, go right ahead.   Prison is going to be rough.
Click to expand...

nobody takes the right wing seriously.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good thing we have a Second Amendment as a Prohibition on Government propaganda and rhetoric.
> 
> the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be Infringed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to take up arms against the gov't over propaganda and rhetoric, go right ahead.   Prison is going to be rough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nobody takes the right wing seriously.
Click to expand...


Ignorance repeated is still ignorance.   Perhaps if you worried more about facts and less about posting nonsense about who takes who seriously, more people would......well...take you seriously.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good thing we have a Second Amendment as a Prohibition on Government propaganda and rhetoric.
> 
> the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be Infringed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to take up arms against the gov't over propaganda and rhetoric, go right ahead.   Prison is going to be rough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nobody takes the right wing seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ignorance repeated is still ignorance.   Perhaps if you worried more about facts and less about posting nonsense about who takes who seriously, more people would......well...take you seriously.
Click to expand...

only the right wing appeals to ignorance of our literal, supreme law of the land.


----------



## Pop23

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good thing we have a Second Amendment as a Prohibition on Government propaganda and rhetoric.
> 
> the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be Infringed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to take up arms against the gov't over propaganda and rhetoric, go right ahead.   Prison is going to be rough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nobody takes the right wing seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ignorance repeated is still ignorance.   Perhaps if you worried more about facts and less about posting nonsense about who takes who seriously, more people would......well...take you seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only the right wing appeals to ignorance of our literal, supreme law of the land.
Click to expand...


I guess the question that should be asked is, What would repealing the 2nd Amendment accomplish?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good thing we have a Second Amendment as a Prohibition on Government propaganda and rhetoric.
> 
> the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be Infringed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to take up arms against the gov't over propaganda and rhetoric, go right ahead.   Prison is going to be rough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nobody takes the right wing seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ignorance repeated is still ignorance.   Perhaps if you worried more about facts and less about posting nonsense about who takes who seriously, more people would......well...take you seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only the right wing appeals to ignorance of our literal, supreme law of the land.
Click to expand...


Not true.  Plenty of liberals appeal to ignorance.  You are a prime example.


----------



## danielpalos

Pop23 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good thing we have a Second Amendment as a Prohibition on Government propaganda and rhetoric.
> 
> the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be Infringed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to take up arms against the gov't over propaganda and rhetoric, go right ahead.   Prison is going to be rough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nobody takes the right wing seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ignorance repeated is still ignorance.   Perhaps if you worried more about facts and less about posting nonsense about who takes who seriously, more people would......well...take you seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only the right wing appeals to ignorance of our literal, supreme law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess the question that should be asked is, What would repealing the 2nd Amendment accomplish?
Click to expand...

I am not advocating repealing the Second Amendment; it is current practice in our Republic.  Only well regulated militia of the People shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

Natural rights are not a consideration, in that Case.  It is All about the collective action of a well regulated militia of the whole and entire People.

The South, is a prime example of historical precedent. 

The North Had to Win, Because, Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; regardless of all of the other ones.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good thing we have a Second Amendment as a Prohibition on Government propaganda and rhetoric.
> 
> the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be Infringed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to take up arms against the gov't over propaganda and rhetoric, go right ahead.   Prison is going to be rough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nobody takes the right wing seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ignorance repeated is still ignorance.   Perhaps if you worried more about facts and less about posting nonsense about who takes who seriously, more people would......well...take you seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only the right wing appeals to ignorance of our literal, supreme law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not true.  Plenty of liberals appeal to ignorance.  You are a prime example.
Click to expand...

dude; stories are all right wingers have.


----------



## Pop23

danielpalos said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to take up arms against the gov't over propaganda and rhetoric, go right ahead.   Prison is going to be rough.
> 
> 
> 
> nobody takes the right wing seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ignorance repeated is still ignorance.   Perhaps if you worried more about facts and less about posting nonsense about who takes who seriously, more people would......well...take you seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only the right wing appeals to ignorance of our literal, supreme law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess the question that should be asked is, What would repealing the 2nd Amendment accomplish?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not advocating repealing the Second Amendment; it is current practice in our Republic.  Only well regulated militia of the People shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Natural rights are not a consideration, in that Case.  It is All about the collective action of a well regulated militia of the whole and entire People.
> 
> The South, is a prime example of historical precedent.
> 
> The North Had to Win, Because, Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; regardless of all of the other ones.
Click to expand...


But I asked, and I will ask again, maybe making a slight modification to the question. What is accomplished if you change the perceived meaning of the second? What would that change do?


----------



## danielpalos

Pop23 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> nobody takes the right wing seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ignorance repeated is still ignorance.   Perhaps if you worried more about facts and less about posting nonsense about who takes who seriously, more people would......well...take you seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only the right wing appeals to ignorance of our literal, supreme law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess the question that should be asked is, What would repealing the 2nd Amendment accomplish?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not advocating repealing the Second Amendment; it is current practice in our Republic.  Only well regulated militia of the People shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Natural rights are not a consideration, in that Case.  It is All about the collective action of a well regulated militia of the whole and entire People.
> 
> The South, is a prime example of historical precedent.
> 
> The North Had to Win, Because, Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; regardless of all of the other ones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But I asked, and I will ask again, maybe making a slight modification to the question. What is accomplished if you change the perceived meaning of the second? What would that change do?
Click to expand...

It would be relevant; but, I am not the one changing anything.  A literal reading is all I need.


----------



## Pop23

danielpalos said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ignorance repeated is still ignorance.   Perhaps if you worried more about facts and less about posting nonsense about who takes who seriously, more people would......well...take you seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> only the right wing appeals to ignorance of our literal, supreme law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess the question that should be asked is, What would repealing the 2nd Amendment accomplish?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not advocating repealing the Second Amendment; it is current practice in our Republic.  Only well regulated militia of the People shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Natural rights are not a consideration, in that Case.  It is All about the collective action of a well regulated militia of the whole and entire People.
> 
> The South, is a prime example of historical precedent.
> 
> The North Had to Win, Because, Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; regardless of all of the other ones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But I asked, and I will ask again, maybe making a slight modification to the question. What is accomplished if you change the perceived meaning of the second? What would that change do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It would be relevant; but, I am not the one changing anything.  A literal reading is all I need.
Click to expand...


You did read the part that included perception, Right?

What would you accomplish?


----------



## danielpalos

Pop23 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> only the right wing appeals to ignorance of our literal, supreme law of the land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess the question that should be asked is, What would repealing the 2nd Amendment accomplish?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not advocating repealing the Second Amendment; it is current practice in our Republic.  Only well regulated militia of the People shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Natural rights are not a consideration, in that Case.  It is All about the collective action of a well regulated militia of the whole and entire People.
> 
> The South, is a prime example of historical precedent.
> 
> The North Had to Win, Because, Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; regardless of all of the other ones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But I asked, and I will ask again, maybe making a slight modification to the question. What is accomplished if you change the perceived meaning of the second? What would that change do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It would be relevant; but, I am not the one changing anything.  A literal reading is all I need.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You did read the part that included perception, Right?
> 
> What would you accomplish?
Click to expand...

and, it is relevant, how?  any change to any contract, changes the terms of the contract.


----------



## Pop23

danielpalos said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess the question that should be asked is, What would repealing the 2nd Amendment accomplish?
> 
> 
> 
> I am not advocating repealing the Second Amendment; it is current practice in our Republic.  Only well regulated militia of the People shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Natural rights are not a consideration, in that Case.  It is All about the collective action of a well regulated militia of the whole and entire People.
> 
> The South, is a prime example of historical precedent.
> 
> The North Had to Win, Because, Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; regardless of all of the other ones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But I asked, and I will ask again, maybe making a slight modification to the question. What is accomplished if you change the perceived meaning of the second? What would that change do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It would be relevant; but, I am not the one changing anything.  A literal reading is all I need.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You did read the part that included perception, Right?
> 
> What would you accomplish?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and, it is relevant, how?  any change to any contract, changes the terms of the contract.
Click to expand...


You don't enter into a contract, nor seek modification of same, without the goal that you will accomplish something. If there is no goal, then what is the point? So what are you seeking to accomplish?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to take up arms against the gov't over propaganda and rhetoric, go right ahead.   Prison is going to be rough.
> 
> 
> 
> nobody takes the right wing seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ignorance repeated is still ignorance.   Perhaps if you worried more about facts and less about posting nonsense about who takes who seriously, more people would......well...take you seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only the right wing appeals to ignorance of our literal, supreme law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not true.  Plenty of liberals appeal to ignorance.  You are a prime example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude; stories are all right wingers have.
Click to expand...


If so, at least they tell the whole story.  They don't make absurd claims and then refuse to elaborate or back them up.


----------



## danielpalos

Pop23 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not advocating repealing the Second Amendment; it is current practice in our Republic.  Only well regulated militia of the People shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Natural rights are not a consideration, in that Case.  It is All about the collective action of a well regulated militia of the whole and entire People.
> 
> The South, is a prime example of historical precedent.
> 
> The North Had to Win, Because, Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; regardless of all of the other ones.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I asked, and I will ask again, maybe making a slight modification to the question. What is accomplished if you change the perceived meaning of the second? What would that change do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It would be relevant; but, I am not the one changing anything.  A literal reading is all I need.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You did read the part that included perception, Right?
> 
> What would you accomplish?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and, it is relevant, how?  any change to any contract, changes the terms of the contract.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't enter into a contract, nor seek modification of same, without the goal that you will accomplish something. If there is no goal, then what is the point? So what are you seeking to accomplish?
Click to expand...

I am not trying to change our Second Amendment.  Why does the right wing want to change the meaning and context with their special pleading?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> nobody takes the right wing seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ignorance repeated is still ignorance.   Perhaps if you worried more about facts and less about posting nonsense about who takes who seriously, more people would......well...take you seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only the right wing appeals to ignorance of our literal, supreme law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not true.  Plenty of liberals appeal to ignorance.  You are a prime example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude; stories are all right wingers have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If so, at least they tell the whole story.  They don't make absurd claims and then refuse to elaborate or back them up.
Click to expand...

whatever story they want.  it is just another story, to storytellers.


----------



## Pop23

danielpalos said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But I asked, and I will ask again, maybe making a slight modification to the question. What is accomplished if you change the perceived meaning of the second? What would that change do?
> 
> 
> 
> It would be relevant; but, I am not the one changing anything.  A literal reading is all I need.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You did read the part that included perception, Right?
> 
> What would you accomplish?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and, it is relevant, how?  any change to any contract, changes the terms of the contract.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't enter into a contract, nor seek modification of same, without the goal that you will accomplish something. If there is no goal, then what is the point? So what are you seeking to accomplish?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not trying to change our Second Amendment.  Why does the right wing want to change the meaning and context with their special pleading?
Click to expand...


I see you won't answer, so I can come to no other conclusion that you have unstated motives making discussion and resolution impossible. Your loss.


----------



## danielpalos

Pop23 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It would be relevant; but, I am not the one changing anything.  A literal reading is all I need.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You did read the part that included perception, Right?
> 
> What would you accomplish?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and, it is relevant, how?  any change to any contract, changes the terms of the contract.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't enter into a contract, nor seek modification of same, without the goal that you will accomplish something. If there is no goal, then what is the point? So what are you seeking to accomplish?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not trying to change our Second Amendment.  Why does the right wing want to change the meaning and context with their special pleading?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see you won't answer, so I can come to no other conclusion that you have unstated motives making discussion and resolution impossible. Your loss.
Click to expand...

Why does the right wing want to change the meaning and context with their special pleading?


----------



## Pop23

danielpalos said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You did read the part that included perception, Right?
> 
> What would you accomplish?
> 
> 
> 
> and, it is relevant, how?  any change to any contract, changes the terms of the contract.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't enter into a contract, nor seek modification of same, without the goal that you will accomplish something. If there is no goal, then what is the point? So what are you seeking to accomplish?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not trying to change our Second Amendment.  Why does the right wing want to change the meaning and context with their special pleading?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see you won't answer, so I can come to no other conclusion that you have unstated motives making discussion and resolution impossible. Your loss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why does the right wing want to change the meaning and context with their special pleading?
Click to expand...


Why does the left never expose their actual goals?


----------



## The Sage of Main Street

Pop23 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> and, it is relevant, how?  any change to any contract, changes the terms of the contract.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't enter into a contract, nor seek modification of same, without the goal that you will accomplish something. If there is no goal, then what is the point? So what are you seeking to accomplish?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not trying to change our Second Amendment.  Why does the right wing want to change the meaning and context with their special pleading?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see you won't answer, so I can come to no other conclusion that you have unstated motives making discussion and resolution impossible. Your loss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why does the right wing want to change the meaning and context with their special pleading?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why does the left never expose their actual goals?
Click to expand...

*What America Needs Is an Ambidextrous Guillotine*

Because their instinctive goal is to provoke people into voting for the Right.  They don't have minds of their own; only fools believe in their self-convincing poses for the media.


----------



## danielpalos

Pop23 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> and, it is relevant, how?  any change to any contract, changes the terms of the contract.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't enter into a contract, nor seek modification of same, without the goal that you will accomplish something. If there is no goal, then what is the point? So what are you seeking to accomplish?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not trying to change our Second Amendment.  Why does the right wing want to change the meaning and context with their special pleading?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see you won't answer, so I can come to no other conclusion that you have unstated motives making discussion and resolution impossible. Your loss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why does the right wing want to change the meaning and context with their special pleading?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why does the left never expose their actual goals?
Click to expand...

Our Second Amendment has our actual goals; the security of a free State.  

We have a Second Amendment and should have, no security problems.


----------



## Pop23

danielpalos said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't enter into a contract, nor seek modification of same, without the goal that you will accomplish something. If there is no goal, then what is the point? So what are you seeking to accomplish?
> 
> 
> 
> I am not trying to change our Second Amendment.  Why does the right wing want to change the meaning and context with their special pleading?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see you won't answer, so I can come to no other conclusion that you have unstated motives making discussion and resolution impossible. Your loss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why does the right wing want to change the meaning and context with their special pleading?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why does the left never expose their actual goals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment has our actual goals; the security of a free State.
> 
> We have a Second Amendment and should have, no security problems.
Click to expand...


I never asked about the goals of the constitution, I asked what you hope to accomplish.


----------



## danielpalos

Pop23 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not trying to change our Second Amendment.  Why does the right wing want to change the meaning and context with their special pleading?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see you won't answer, so I can come to no other conclusion that you have unstated motives making discussion and resolution impossible. Your loss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why does the right wing want to change the meaning and context with their special pleading?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why does the left never expose their actual goals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment has our actual goals; the security of a free State.
> 
> We have a Second Amendment and should have, no security problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never asked about the goals of the constitution, I asked what you hope to accomplish.
Click to expand...

We have a Second Amendment and should have, no security problems.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ignorance repeated is still ignorance.   Perhaps if you worried more about facts and less about posting nonsense about who takes who seriously, more people would......well...take you seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> only the right wing appeals to ignorance of our literal, supreme law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not true.  Plenty of liberals appeal to ignorance.  You are a prime example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude; stories are all right wingers have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If so, at least they tell the whole story.  They don't make absurd claims and then refuse to elaborate or back them up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> whatever story they want.  it is just another story, to storytellers.
Click to expand...


No.  What I tell is to show you to be the pretentious little psuedo-intellectual you are.  I think my work here is done.  Your keep saying no one takes conservatives seriously?  No one can stop laughing at your feeble attempts at debate.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> only the right wing appeals to ignorance of our literal, supreme law of the land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true.  Plenty of liberals appeal to ignorance.  You are a prime example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude; stories are all right wingers have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If so, at least they tell the whole story.  They don't make absurd claims and then refuse to elaborate or back them up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> whatever story they want.  it is just another story, to storytellers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  What I tell is to show you to be the pretentious little psuedo-intellectual you are.  I think my work here is done.  Your keep saying no one takes conservatives seriously?  No one can stop laughing at your feeble attempts at debate.
Click to expand...

y'all have, nothing but fallacy.  i like to practice, just for fun.


----------



## Pop23

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not true.  Plenty of liberals appeal to ignorance.  You are a prime example.
> 
> 
> 
> dude; stories are all right wingers have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If so, at least they tell the whole story.  They don't make absurd claims and then refuse to elaborate or back them up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> whatever story they want.  it is just another story, to storytellers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  What I tell is to show you to be the pretentious little psuedo-intellectual you are.  I think my work here is done.  Your keep saying no one takes conservatives seriously?  No one can stop laughing at your feeble attempts at debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> y'all have, nothing but fallacy.  i like to practice, just for fun.
Click to expand...


As do most gun owners


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not true.  Plenty of liberals appeal to ignorance.  You are a prime example.
> 
> 
> 
> dude; stories are all right wingers have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If so, at least they tell the whole story.  They don't make absurd claims and then refuse to elaborate or back them up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> whatever story they want.  it is just another story, to storytellers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  What I tell is to show you to be the pretentious little psuedo-intellectual you are.  I think my work here is done.  Your keep saying no one takes conservatives seriously?  No one can stop laughing at your feeble attempts at debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> y'all have, nothing but fallacy.  i like to practice, just for fun.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I know you like to practice.  But you like to practice with girls who want a friend and you pretend to be that to get practice.  Had any takers on the offer of a free massage with happy endings?  lol


----------



## Flopper

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Natural rights are those that are not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture or government, and so are universal and inalienable;
> 
> 
> 
> So, natural rights are inalienable and universal but...
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Natural rights become legal rights only when incorporated into the law. For example the Bill of Rights gives legal force to some our most important natural rights. Natural rights can only be enforced if they become legal rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What happened to the inalienable part?
Click to expand...

*Inalienable or natural rights are those which can not be taken away, endowed by the creator, or rights that all have we have at birth for example life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These are rather general philosophical not legal terms that are subject to the opinion.  Legal rights are often derived from natural rights. Our legal system enforces legal rights, not natural rights. *


----------



## danielpalos

Pop23 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> dude; stories are all right wingers have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If so, at least they tell the whole story.  They don't make absurd claims and then refuse to elaborate or back them up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> whatever story they want.  it is just another story, to storytellers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  What I tell is to show you to be the pretentious little psuedo-intellectual you are.  I think my work here is done.  Your keep saying no one takes conservatives seriously?  No one can stop laughing at your feeble attempts at debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> y'all have, nothing but fallacy.  i like to practice, just for fun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As do most gun owners
Click to expand...

so what.  well regulated militia don't whine about gun control laws; only the unorganized militia, does that.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> dude; stories are all right wingers have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If so, at least they tell the whole story.  They don't make absurd claims and then refuse to elaborate or back them up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> whatever story they want.  it is just another story, to storytellers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  What I tell is to show you to be the pretentious little psuedo-intellectual you are.  I think my work here is done.  Your keep saying no one takes conservatives seriously?  No one can stop laughing at your feeble attempts at debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> y'all have, nothing but fallacy.  i like to practice, just for fun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, I know you like to practice.  But you like to practice with girls who want a friend and you pretend to be that to get practice.  Had any takers on the offer of a free massage with happy endings?  lol
Click to expand...

i like to practice resorting to the fewest fallacies, as well.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If so, at least they tell the whole story.  They don't make absurd claims and then refuse to elaborate or back them up.
> 
> 
> 
> whatever story they want.  it is just another story, to storytellers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  What I tell is to show you to be the pretentious little psuedo-intellectual you are.  I think my work here is done.  Your keep saying no one takes conservatives seriously?  No one can stop laughing at your feeble attempts at debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> y'all have, nothing but fallacy.  i like to practice, just for fun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As do most gun owners
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so what.  well regulated militia don't whine about gun control laws; only the unorganized militia, does that.
Click to expand...


I am happy to be well regulated when I am in a militia.  Until then, my right to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> whatever story they want.  it is just another story, to storytellers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  What I tell is to show you to be the pretentious little psuedo-intellectual you are.  I think my work here is done.  Your keep saying no one takes conservatives seriously?  No one can stop laughing at your feeble attempts at debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> y'all have, nothing but fallacy.  i like to practice, just for fun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As do most gun owners
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so what.  well regulated militia don't whine about gun control laws; only the unorganized militia, does that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am happy to be well regulated when I am in a militia.  Until then, my right to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed.
Click to expand...

has nothing to do with our Second Amendment; natural rights are in State Constitutions.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If so, at least they tell the whole story.  They don't make absurd claims and then refuse to elaborate or back them up.
> 
> 
> 
> whatever story they want.  it is just another story, to storytellers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  What I tell is to show you to be the pretentious little psuedo-intellectual you are.  I think my work here is done.  Your keep saying no one takes conservatives seriously?  No one can stop laughing at your feeble attempts at debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> y'all have, nothing but fallacy.  i like to practice, just for fun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, I know you like to practice.  But you like to practice with girls who want a friend and you pretend to be that to get practice.  Had any takers on the offer of a free massage with happy endings?  lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i like to practice resorting to the fewest fallacies, as well.
Click to expand...


I'd like for you to start practicing that too.  But do it in a way where you are actually using facts.  Not in the way you have been doing, namely making a spurious claim and then just spouting nonsense ("nobody takes conservatives seriously" or "Only conservatives resort to appeal to ignorance") instead of clarifying or providing backup for those claims.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  What I tell is to show you to be the pretentious little psuedo-intellectual you are.  I think my work here is done.  Your keep saying no one takes conservatives seriously?  No one can stop laughing at your feeble attempts at debate.
> 
> 
> 
> y'all have, nothing but fallacy.  i like to practice, just for fun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As do most gun owners
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so what.  well regulated militia don't whine about gun control laws; only the unorganized militia, does that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am happy to be well regulated when I am in a militia.  Until then, my right to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> has nothing to do with our Second Amendment; natural rights are in State Constitutions.
Click to expand...


Yes, it has everything to do with our 2nd amendment (if we use your interpretation).
No, that is bullshit where the "natural rights" are concerned.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> y'all have, nothing but fallacy.  i like to practice, just for fun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As do most gun owners
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so what.  well regulated militia don't whine about gun control laws; only the unorganized militia, does that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am happy to be well regulated when I am in a militia.  Until then, my right to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> has nothing to do with our Second Amendment; natural rights are in State Constitutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it has everything to do with our 2nd amendment (if we use your interpretation).
> No, that is bullshit where the "natural rights" are concerned.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't.  Individual rights are in State Constitutions.  Our Second Amendment has no individual rights, only expressly declared civil rights.


----------



## EGR one

Daryl Hunt said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the 2nd amendment was meant as the left says it was........
> 
> WHY THE HELL WOULD IT APPEAR IN THE BILL IF RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
> 
> Clue, it wouldn’t
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We aren't governed by any part of the Bill of Rights.  We are governed by the Constitutions of the United States and the many States.  As nice and lofty as the Bill of Rights is, it's just another piece of parchment, nothing more.
Click to expand...


You are absolutely full of crap.  The Supreme Court in the Heller decision made that clear.  The second amendment is an individual right, and the 14th amendment does apply the second amendment to the states.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As do most gun owners
> 
> 
> 
> so what.  well regulated militia don't whine about gun control laws; only the unorganized militia, does that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am happy to be well regulated when I am in a militia.  Until then, my right to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> has nothing to do with our Second Amendment; natural rights are in State Constitutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it has everything to do with our 2nd amendment (if we use your interpretation).
> No, that is bullshit where the "natural rights" are concerned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't.  Individual rights are in State Constitutions.  Our Second Amendment has no individual rights, only expressly declared civil rights.
Click to expand...


The Bill of Rights was written specifically to preserve and guarantee individual rights.  The men who wrote it said that.  You keep bouncing back and forth between natural rights and individual rights.  And yet, you claim they are not the same thing.

The Bill of Rights is specifically about individual rights.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> so what.  well regulated militia don't whine about gun control laws; only the unorganized militia, does that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am happy to be well regulated when I am in a militia.  Until then, my right to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> has nothing to do with our Second Amendment; natural rights are in State Constitutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it has everything to do with our 2nd amendment (if we use your interpretation).
> No, that is bullshit where the "natural rights" are concerned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't.  Individual rights are in State Constitutions.  Our Second Amendment has no individual rights, only expressly declared civil rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Bill of Rights was written specifically to preserve and guarantee individual rights.  The men who wrote it said that.  You keep bouncing back and forth between natural rights and individual rights.  And yet, you claim they are not the same thing.
> 
> The Bill of Rights is specifically about individual rights.
Click to expand...

That is Your story bro.  Our Tenth Amendment and our Second Amendment, are about States sovereign rights.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am happy to be well regulated when I am in a militia.  Until then, my right to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> 
> 
> has nothing to do with our Second Amendment; natural rights are in State Constitutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it has everything to do with our 2nd amendment (if we use your interpretation).
> No, that is bullshit where the "natural rights" are concerned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't.  Individual rights are in State Constitutions.  Our Second Amendment has no individual rights, only expressly declared civil rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Bill of Rights was written specifically to preserve and guarantee individual rights.  The men who wrote it said that.  You keep bouncing back and forth between natural rights and individual rights.  And yet, you claim they are not the same thing.
> 
> The Bill of Rights is specifically about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is Your story bro.  Our Tenth Amendment and our Second Amendment, are about States sovereign rights.
Click to expand...


The 10th amendment simply says "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".   The rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights are not states rights.  And the 2nd amendment specifically speaks to the right of the people.  So it is not about states sovereign rights.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> has nothing to do with our Second Amendment; natural rights are in State Constitutions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it has everything to do with our 2nd amendment (if we use your interpretation).
> No, that is bullshit where the "natural rights" are concerned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't.  Individual rights are in State Constitutions.  Our Second Amendment has no individual rights, only expressly declared civil rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Bill of Rights was written specifically to preserve and guarantee individual rights.  The men who wrote it said that.  You keep bouncing back and forth between natural rights and individual rights.  And yet, you claim they are not the same thing.
> 
> The Bill of Rights is specifically about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is Your story bro.  Our Tenth Amendment and our Second Amendment, are about States sovereign rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 10th amendment simply says "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".   The rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights are not states rights.  And the 2nd amendment specifically speaks to the right of the people.  So it is not about states sovereign rights.
Click to expand...

Our Second Amendment is a States' sovereign right.   It says so in the first clause.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it has everything to do with our 2nd amendment (if we use your interpretation).
> No, that is bullshit where the "natural rights" are concerned.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't.  Individual rights are in State Constitutions.  Our Second Amendment has no individual rights, only expressly declared civil rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Bill of Rights was written specifically to preserve and guarantee individual rights.  The men who wrote it said that.  You keep bouncing back and forth between natural rights and individual rights.  And yet, you claim they are not the same thing.
> 
> The Bill of Rights is specifically about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is Your story bro.  Our Tenth Amendment and our Second Amendment, are about States sovereign rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 10th amendment simply says "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".   The rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights are not states rights.  And the 2nd amendment specifically speaks to the right of the people.  So it is not about states sovereign rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment is a States' sovereign right.   It says so in the first clause.
Click to expand...


No it does not.  It says specifically in the second clause that it a right of the people.  And the 10 amendment says the states or the people.   It is an individual right.  The militia is formed when needed to defend the country.  The individuals that make up the militia are the people whose rights to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed upon.


----------



## Flopper

*If the founders could have seen how many millions of hours were going to be wasted fighting over that silly clause they would have probably shortened the amendment to "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".   Or course the only reason for the amendment was to satisfy those states concerned about the militia having trained armed recruits, so they might have just dropped the whole amendment.  

In those days, very few people were worried about the government taking away guns.  The damn things were cumbersome, slow loading, expensive, and too often blew in one's face.

The real hot issue in the Bill of Rights was the first amendment because a number of states had state sponsored religions. *


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't.  Individual rights are in State Constitutions.  Our Second Amendment has no individual rights, only expressly declared civil rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Bill of Rights was written specifically to preserve and guarantee individual rights.  The men who wrote it said that.  You keep bouncing back and forth between natural rights and individual rights.  And yet, you claim they are not the same thing.
> 
> The Bill of Rights is specifically about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is Your story bro.  Our Tenth Amendment and our Second Amendment, are about States sovereign rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 10th amendment simply says "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".   The rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights are not states rights.  And the 2nd amendment specifically speaks to the right of the people.  So it is not about states sovereign rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment is a States' sovereign right.   It says so in the first clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it does not.  It says specifically in the second clause that it a right of the people.  And the 10 amendment says the states or the people.   It is an individual right.  The militia is formed when needed to defend the country.  The individuals that make up the militia are the people whose rights to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed upon.
Click to expand...

so what.  the second clause would be that important, if it were a Constitution, Unto Itself.  But, alas, it is merely and Only, the Second, not the First, Article of Amendment.


----------



## danielpalos

Flopper said:


> *If the founders could have seen how many millions of hours were going to be wasted fighting over that silly clause they would have probably shortened the amendment to "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".   Or course the only reason for the amendment was to satisfy those states concerned about the militia having trained armed recruits, so they might have just dropped the whole amendment.
> 
> In those days, very few people were worried about the government taking away guns.  The damn things were cumbersome, slow loading, expensive, and too often blew in one's face.
> 
> The real hot issue in the Bill of Rights was the first amendment because a number of states had state sponsored religions. *


Our Constitution and supreme law of the land, was written, termed and styled such, for a Reason.  That reason is Order over Chaos, every time there is a Decision to be made.

There is No Provision for excuses in the federal doctrine, Only results.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bill of Rights was written specifically to preserve and guarantee individual rights.  The men who wrote it said that.  You keep bouncing back and forth between natural rights and individual rights.  And yet, you claim they are not the same thing.
> 
> The Bill of Rights is specifically about individual rights.
> 
> 
> 
> That is Your story bro.  Our Tenth Amendment and our Second Amendment, are about States sovereign rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 10th amendment simply says "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".   The rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights are not states rights.  And the 2nd amendment specifically speaks to the right of the people.  So it is not about states sovereign rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment is a States' sovereign right.   It says so in the first clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it does not.  It says specifically in the second clause that it a right of the people.  And the 10 amendment says the states or the people.   It is an individual right.  The militia is formed when needed to defend the country.  The individuals that make up the militia are the people whose rights to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed upon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so what.  the second clause would be that important, if it were a Constitution, Unto Itself.  But, alas, it is merely and Only, the Second, not the First, Article of Amendment.
Click to expand...


Alas, you are wrong again.  In addition to the basic rules of the English language, every constitutional scholar worth his salt disagrees with you.

And a militia is not a standing army.  They only muster when needed.   Plus, the amendment specifically says "the people".


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is Your story bro.  Our Tenth Amendment and our Second Amendment, are about States sovereign rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 10th amendment simply says "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".   The rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights are not states rights.  And the 2nd amendment specifically speaks to the right of the people.  So it is not about states sovereign rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment is a States' sovereign right.   It says so in the first clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it does not.  It says specifically in the second clause that it a right of the people.  And the 10 amendment says the states or the people.   It is an individual right.  The militia is formed when needed to defend the country.  The individuals that make up the militia are the people whose rights to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed upon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so what.  the second clause would be that important, if it were a Constitution, Unto Itself.  But, alas, it is merely and Only, the Second, not the First, Article of Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Alas, you are wrong again.  In addition to the basic rules of the English language, every constitutional scholar worth his salt disagrees with you.
> 
> And a militia is not a standing army.  They only muster when needed.   Plus, the amendment specifically says "the people".
Click to expand...

that is your straw man story bro.  my story is, the right wing is simply clueless and Causeless, and their arguments Prove it, every time.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 10th amendment simply says "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".   The rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights are not states rights.  And the 2nd amendment specifically speaks to the right of the people.  So it is not about states sovereign rights.
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is a States' sovereign right.   It says so in the first clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it does not.  It says specifically in the second clause that it a right of the people.  And the 10 amendment says the states or the people.   It is an individual right.  The militia is formed when needed to defend the country.  The individuals that make up the militia are the people whose rights to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed upon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so what.  the second clause would be that important, if it were a Constitution, Unto Itself.  But, alas, it is merely and Only, the Second, not the First, Article of Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Alas, you are wrong again.  In addition to the basic rules of the English language, every constitutional scholar worth his salt disagrees with you.
> 
> And a militia is not a standing army.  They only muster when needed.   Plus, the amendment specifically says "the people".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is your straw man story bro.  my story is, the right wing is simply clueless and Causeless, and their arguments Prove it, every time.
Click to expand...


Definition of Strawman:  "A *straw man* is a common form of argument and is an informal *fallacy* based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent".

As for your claims about right wing arguments, it really does not present any debate points or facts.  So it is a waste of space.  But then, it does make up most of your argument.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is a States' sovereign right.   It says so in the first clause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it does not.  It says specifically in the second clause that it a right of the people.  And the 10 amendment says the states or the people.   It is an individual right.  The militia is formed when needed to defend the country.  The individuals that make up the militia are the people whose rights to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed upon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so what.  the second clause would be that important, if it were a Constitution, Unto Itself.  But, alas, it is merely and Only, the Second, not the First, Article of Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Alas, you are wrong again.  In addition to the basic rules of the English language, every constitutional scholar worth his salt disagrees with you.
> 
> And a militia is not a standing army.  They only muster when needed.   Plus, the amendment specifically says "the people".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is your straw man story bro.  my story is, the right wing is simply clueless and Causeless, and their arguments Prove it, every time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Definition of Strawman:  "A *straw man* is a common form of argument and is an informal *fallacy* based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent".
> 
> As for your claims about right wing arguments, it really does not present any debate points or facts.  So it is a waste of space.  But then, it does make up most of your argument.
Click to expand...

Muster the militia until crime goes down.  It must be cheaper than our war on crime.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it does not.  It says specifically in the second clause that it a right of the people.  And the 10 amendment says the states or the people.   It is an individual right.  The militia is formed when needed to defend the country.  The individuals that make up the militia are the people whose rights to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed upon.
> 
> 
> 
> so what.  the second clause would be that important, if it were a Constitution, Unto Itself.  But, alas, it is merely and Only, the Second, not the First, Article of Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Alas, you are wrong again.  In addition to the basic rules of the English language, every constitutional scholar worth his salt disagrees with you.
> 
> And a militia is not a standing army.  They only muster when needed.   Plus, the amendment specifically says "the people".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is your straw man story bro.  my story is, the right wing is simply clueless and Causeless, and their arguments Prove it, every time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Definition of Strawman:  "A *straw man* is a common form of argument and is an informal *fallacy* based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent".
> 
> As for your claims about right wing arguments, it really does not present any debate points or facts.  So it is a waste of space.  But then, it does make up most of your argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Muster the militia until crime goes down.  It must be cheaper than our war on crime.
Click to expand...

No.   THey are completely unqualified.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> so what.  the second clause would be that important, if it were a Constitution, Unto Itself.  But, alas, it is merely and Only, the Second, not the First, Article of Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alas, you are wrong again.  In addition to the basic rules of the English language, every constitutional scholar worth his salt disagrees with you.
> 
> And a militia is not a standing army.  They only muster when needed.   Plus, the amendment specifically says "the people".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is your straw man story bro.  my story is, the right wing is simply clueless and Causeless, and their arguments Prove it, every time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Definition of Strawman:  "A *straw man* is a common form of argument and is an informal *fallacy* based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent".
> 
> As for your claims about right wing arguments, it really does not present any debate points or facts.  So it is a waste of space.  But then, it does make up most of your argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Muster the militia until crime goes down.  It must be cheaper than our war on crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.   THey are completely unqualified.
Click to expand...

Regulate them well, until there are no more excuses, only results.


----------



## Pop23

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Alas, you are wrong again.  In addition to the basic rules of the English language, every constitutional scholar worth his salt disagrees with you.
> 
> And a militia is not a standing army.  They only muster when needed.   Plus, the amendment specifically says "the people".
> 
> 
> 
> that is your straw man story bro.  my story is, the right wing is simply clueless and Causeless, and their arguments Prove it, every time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Definition of Strawman:  "A *straw man* is a common form of argument and is an informal *fallacy* based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent".
> 
> As for your claims about right wing arguments, it really does not present any debate points or facts.  So it is a waste of space.  But then, it does make up most of your argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Muster the militia until crime goes down.  It must be cheaper than our war on crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.   THey are completely unqualified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Regulate them well, until there are no more excuses, only results.
Click to expand...


Won’t help. Even if it worked and we were given such arrest authority, you snowflakes would release the criminals back into the general population.


----------



## danielpalos

Pop23 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> that is your straw man story bro.  my story is, the right wing is simply clueless and Causeless, and their arguments Prove it, every time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of Strawman:  "A *straw man* is a common form of argument and is an informal *fallacy* based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent".
> 
> As for your claims about right wing arguments, it really does not present any debate points or facts.  So it is a waste of space.  But then, it does make up most of your argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Muster the militia until crime goes down.  It must be cheaper than our war on crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.   THey are completely unqualified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Regulate them well, until there are no more excuses, only results.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Won’t help. Even if it worked and we were given such arrest authority, you snowflakes would release the criminals back into the general population.
Click to expand...

better aqueducts, better roads, and more well regulated militia; the federal doctrine provides Only solutions, not excuses.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Alas, you are wrong again.  In addition to the basic rules of the English language, every constitutional scholar worth his salt disagrees with you.
> 
> And a militia is not a standing army.  They only muster when needed.   Plus, the amendment specifically says "the people".
> 
> 
> 
> that is your straw man story bro.  my story is, the right wing is simply clueless and Causeless, and their arguments Prove it, every time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Definition of Strawman:  "A *straw man* is a common form of argument and is an informal *fallacy* based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent".
> 
> As for your claims about right wing arguments, it really does not present any debate points or facts.  So it is a waste of space.  But then, it does make up most of your argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Muster the militia until crime goes down.  It must be cheaper than our war on crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.   THey are completely unqualified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Regulate them well, until there are no more excuses, only results.
Click to expand...


Regulating is not the same as training.   They can be regulated and they would still be completely unqualified.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of Strawman:  "A *straw man* is a common form of argument and is an informal *fallacy* based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent".
> 
> As for your claims about right wing arguments, it really does not present any debate points or facts.  So it is a waste of space.  But then, it does make up most of your argument.
> 
> 
> 
> Muster the militia until crime goes down.  It must be cheaper than our war on crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.   THey are completely unqualified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Regulate them well, until there are no more excuses, only results.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Won’t help. Even if it worked and we were given such arrest authority, you snowflakes would release the criminals back into the general population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> better aqueducts, better roads, and more well regulated militia; the federal doctrine provides Only solutions, not excuses.
Click to expand...


Now you want them to work construction?   Once again, they are, largely, unqualified.   And will you pay the extra taxes to pay them?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> that is your straw man story bro.  my story is, the right wing is simply clueless and Causeless, and their arguments Prove it, every time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of Strawman:  "A *straw man* is a common form of argument and is an informal *fallacy* based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent".
> 
> As for your claims about right wing arguments, it really does not present any debate points or facts.  So it is a waste of space.  But then, it does make up most of your argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Muster the militia until crime goes down.  It must be cheaper than our war on crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.   THey are completely unqualified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Regulate them well, until there are no more excuses, only results.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Regulating is not the same as training.   They can be regulated and they would still be completely unqualified.
Click to expand...

it is the same.  Wellness of regulation, requires discipline and training.


----------



## Flopper

danielpalos said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If the founders could have seen how many millions of hours were going to be wasted fighting over that silly clause they would have probably shortened the amendment to "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".   Or course the only reason for the amendment was to satisfy those states concerned about the militia having trained armed recruits, so they might have just dropped the whole amendment.
> 
> In those days, very few people were worried about the government taking away guns.  The damn things were cumbersome, slow loading, expensive, and too often blew in one's face.
> 
> The real hot issue in the Bill of Rights was the first amendment because a number of states had state sponsored religions. *
> 
> 
> 
> Our Constitution and supreme law of the land, was written, termed and styled such, for a Reason.  That reason is Order over Chaos, every time there is a Decision to be made.
> 
> There is No Provision for excuses in the federal doctrine, Only results.
Click to expand...

*Keep in mind the constitution, like all pieces of legislation was a compromise. The two political sects, the federalist lead by Alexander Hamilton and the Jeffersonian Democratic Republicans lead by Thomas Jefferson had opposing ideas as to how the new government would function.  The resulting political parties dominated the political landscape in all states.  Considering the political atmosphere in the late 18th century, the constitution, although not perfect was a remarkable document.

There are a number flaws in the constitution but probably the greatest is lack of change.  This of course gives the document a timeless nature, which in turn gives it a near sacred or mystical aura in the eyes of Americans.  Sacred timelessness is great for building a civic identity.  But it makes for really horrible law. The Constitution is far too difficult to amend, which means it cannot respond to changes in society and moral values.  By default it gives preference to a version of a moral and orderly society that fit a group of people long since dead, at the expense of a version that fits the group currently living.  A constitution is living or dead; ours is rapidly moving toward the latter.  *


----------



## hjmick

Daryl Hunt said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> Applying 21st Century mores to 18th Century thinking is an exercise in vanity.
> 
> The militia is bound to the right.  The right is not bound to the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to follow the meaning of the 2nd amendment, the Militia is bound to the Government which should be neither right nor left, it just is.
Click to expand...



Which is why there is a comma separating the militia from the people in the Second... 

They knew that a government, a country, needed an armed force to defend itself and its citizens. At the same time, they had just broken free from a ruler and government they considered tyrannical and recognized that there is always the potential for a ruler or government to go bad, thus the right of the people to keep and bear Arms...

The militia is necessary, but that does not preclude the people being armed.

Some might argue that this applies only to the federal government and that state and local governments are free to infringe all they want... but that's another discussion...


----------



## danielpalos

Flopper said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If the founders could have seen how many millions of hours were going to be wasted fighting over that silly clause they would have probably shortened the amendment to "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".   Or course the only reason for the amendment was to satisfy those states concerned about the militia having trained armed recruits, so they might have just dropped the whole amendment.
> 
> In those days, very few people were worried about the government taking away guns.  The damn things were cumbersome, slow loading, expensive, and too often blew in one's face.
> 
> The real hot issue in the Bill of Rights was the first amendment because a number of states had state sponsored religions. *
> 
> 
> 
> Our Constitution and supreme law of the land, was written, termed and styled such, for a Reason.  That reason is Order over Chaos, every time there is a Decision to be made.
> 
> There is No Provision for excuses in the federal doctrine, Only results.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Keep in mind the constitution, like all pieces of legislation was a compromise. The two political sects, the federalist lead by Alexander Hamilton and the Jeffersonian Democratic Republicans lead by Thomas Jefferson had opposing ideas as to how the new government would function.  The resulting political parties dominated the political landscape in all states.  Considering the political atmosphere in the late 18th century, the constitution, although not perfect was a remarkable document.
> 
> There are a number flaws in the constitution but probably the greatest is lack of change.  This of course gives the document a timeless nature, which in turn gives it a near sacred or mystical aura in the eyes of Americans.  Sacred timelessness is great for building a civic identity.  But it makes for really horrible law. The Constitution is far too difficult to amend, which means it cannot respond to changes in society and moral values.  By default it gives preference to a version of a moral and orderly society that fit a group of people long since dead, at the expense of a version that fits the group currently living.  A constitution is living or dead; ours is rapidly moving toward the latter.  *
Click to expand...

I agree to disagree.  We could not do a better job, today.


----------



## danielpalos

hjmick said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> Applying 21st Century mores to 18th Century thinking is an exercise in vanity.
> 
> The militia is bound to the right.  The right is not bound to the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to follow the meaning of the 2nd amendment, the Militia is bound to the Government which should be neither right nor left, it just is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why there is a comma separating the militia from the people in the Second...
> 
> They knew that a government, a country, needed an armed force to defend itself and its citizens. At the same time, they had just broken free from a ruler and government they considered tyrannical and recognized that there is always the potential for a ruler or government to go bad, thus the right of the people to keep and bear Arms...
> 
> The militia is necessary, but that does not preclude the people being armed.
> 
> Some might argue that this applies only to the federal government and that state and local governments are free to infringe all they want... but that's another discussion...
Click to expand...

there are no natural rights in our Second Amendment.


----------



## hjmick

danielpalos said:


> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> Applying 21st Century mores to 18th Century thinking is an exercise in vanity.
> 
> The militia is bound to the right.  The right is not bound to the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to follow the meaning of the 2nd amendment, the Militia is bound to the Government which should be neither right nor left, it just is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why there is a comma separating the militia from the people in the Second...
> 
> They knew that a government, a country, needed an armed force to defend itself and its citizens. At the same time, they had just broken free from a ruler and government they considered tyrannical and recognized that there is always the potential for a ruler or government to go bad, thus the right of the people to keep and bear Arms...
> 
> The militia is necessary, but that does not preclude the people being armed.
> 
> Some might argue that this applies only to the federal government and that state and local governments are free to infringe all they want... but that's another discussion...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there are no natural rights in our Second Amendment.
Click to expand...



Where did I say anything about "natural rights"?


----------



## danielpalos

hjmick said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> Applying 21st Century mores to 18th Century thinking is an exercise in vanity.
> 
> The militia is bound to the right.  The right is not bound to the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to follow the meaning of the 2nd amendment, the Militia is bound to the Government which should be neither right nor left, it just is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why there is a comma separating the militia from the people in the Second...
> 
> They knew that a government, a country, needed an armed force to defend itself and its citizens. At the same time, they had just broken free from a ruler and government they considered tyrannical and recognized that there is always the potential for a ruler or government to go bad, thus the right of the people to keep and bear Arms...
> 
> The militia is necessary, but that does not preclude the people being armed.
> 
> Some might argue that this applies only to the federal government and that state and local governments are free to infringe all they want... but that's another discussion...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there are no natural rights in our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where did I say anything about "natural rights"?
Click to expand...

that is where you would have to get Individual rights to do, what is claimed by the right wing.


----------



## hjmick

danielpalos said:


> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> Applying 21st Century mores to 18th Century thinking is an exercise in vanity.
> 
> The militia is bound to the right.  The right is not bound to the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to follow the meaning of the 2nd amendment, the Militia is bound to the Government which should be neither right nor left, it just is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why there is a comma separating the militia from the people in the Second...
> 
> They knew that a government, a country, needed an armed force to defend itself and its citizens. At the same time, they had just broken free from a ruler and government they considered tyrannical and recognized that there is always the potential for a ruler or government to go bad, thus the right of the people to keep and bear Arms...
> 
> The militia is necessary, but that does not preclude the people being armed.
> 
> Some might argue that this applies only to the federal government and that state and local governments are free to infringe all they want... but that's another discussion...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there are no natural rights in our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where did I say anything about "natural rights"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is where you would have to get Individual rights to do, what is claimed by the right wing.
Click to expand...



Go peddle your bullshit to them, I'm talking about rights granted by our Constitution.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of Strawman:  "A *straw man* is a common form of argument and is an informal *fallacy* based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent".
> 
> As for your claims about right wing arguments, it really does not present any debate points or facts.  So it is a waste of space.  But then, it does make up most of your argument.
> 
> 
> 
> Muster the militia until crime goes down.  It must be cheaper than our war on crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.   THey are completely unqualified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Regulate them well, until there are no more excuses, only results.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Regulating is not the same as training.   They can be regulated and they would still be completely unqualified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is the same.  Wellness of regulation, requires discipline and training.
Click to expand...


Regulation for a militia is most certainly NOT the same as the training to be a qualified law enforcement officer.   Not even close.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> Applying 21st Century mores to 18th Century thinking is an exercise in vanity.
> 
> The militia is bound to the right.  The right is not bound to the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to follow the meaning of the 2nd amendment, the Militia is bound to the Government which should be neither right nor left, it just is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why there is a comma separating the militia from the people in the Second...
> 
> They knew that a government, a country, needed an armed force to defend itself and its citizens. At the same time, they had just broken free from a ruler and government they considered tyrannical and recognized that there is always the potential for a ruler or government to go bad, thus the right of the people to keep and bear Arms...
> 
> The militia is necessary, but that does not preclude the people being armed.
> 
> Some might argue that this applies only to the federal government and that state and local governments are free to infringe all they want... but that's another discussion...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there are no natural rights in our Second Amendment.
Click to expand...


Whether the rights are natural or not, the 2nd guarantees an individual right.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> Applying 21st Century mores to 18th Century thinking is an exercise in vanity.
> 
> The militia is bound to the right.  The right is not bound to the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to follow the meaning of the 2nd amendment, the Militia is bound to the Government which should be neither right nor left, it just is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why there is a comma separating the militia from the people in the Second...
> 
> They knew that a government, a country, needed an armed force to defend itself and its citizens. At the same time, they had just broken free from a ruler and government they considered tyrannical and recognized that there is always the potential for a ruler or government to go bad, thus the right of the people to keep and bear Arms...
> 
> The militia is necessary, but that does not preclude the people being armed.
> 
> Some might argue that this applies only to the federal government and that state and local governments are free to infringe all they want... but that's another discussion...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there are no natural rights in our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where did I say anything about "natural rights"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is where you would have to get Individual rights to do, what is claimed by the right wing.
Click to expand...


An individual right is not always a natural right.


----------



## danielpalos

hjmick said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to follow the meaning of the 2nd amendment, the Militia is bound to the Government which should be neither right nor left, it just is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why there is a comma separating the militia from the people in the Second...
> 
> They knew that a government, a country, needed an armed force to defend itself and its citizens. At the same time, they had just broken free from a ruler and government they considered tyrannical and recognized that there is always the potential for a ruler or government to go bad, thus the right of the people to keep and bear Arms...
> 
> The militia is necessary, but that does not preclude the people being armed.
> 
> Some might argue that this applies only to the federal government and that state and local governments are free to infringe all they want... but that's another discussion...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there are no natural rights in our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where did I say anything about "natural rights"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is where you would have to get Individual rights to do, what is claimed by the right wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Go peddle your bullshit to them, I'm talking about rights granted by our Constitution.
Click to expand...

You don't know what You are talking about; like Usual for the right wing.  

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Muster the militia until crime goes down.  It must be cheaper than our war on crime.
> 
> 
> 
> No.   THey are completely unqualified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Regulate them well, until there are no more excuses, only results.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Regulating is not the same as training.   They can be regulated and they would still be completely unqualified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is the same.  Wellness of regulation, requires discipline and training.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Regulation for a militia is most certainly NOT the same as the training to be a qualified law enforcement officer.   Not even close.
Click to expand...

Yes, it must.  There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.


----------



## hjmick

danielpalos said:


> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why there is a comma separating the militia from the people in the Second...
> 
> They knew that a government, a country, needed an armed force to defend itself and its citizens. At the same time, they had just broken free from a ruler and government they considered tyrannical and recognized that there is always the potential for a ruler or government to go bad, thus the right of the people to keep and bear Arms...
> 
> The militia is necessary, but that does not preclude the people being armed.
> 
> Some might argue that this applies only to the federal government and that state and local governments are free to infringe all they want... but that's another discussion...
> 
> 
> 
> there are no natural rights in our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where did I say anything about "natural rights"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is where you would have to get Individual rights to do, what is claimed by the right wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Go peddle your bullshit to them, I'm talking about rights granted by our Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't know what You are talking about; like Usual for the right wing.
> 
> Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.
Click to expand...



Again, where did I mention anything about natural rights?

You have a comprehension problem.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> Applying 21st Century mores to 18th Century thinking is an exercise in vanity.
> 
> The militia is bound to the right.  The right is not bound to the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to follow the meaning of the 2nd amendment, the Militia is bound to the Government which should be neither right nor left, it just is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why there is a comma separating the militia from the people in the Second...
> 
> They knew that a government, a country, needed an armed force to defend itself and its citizens. At the same time, they had just broken free from a ruler and government they considered tyrannical and recognized that there is always the potential for a ruler or government to go bad, thus the right of the people to keep and bear Arms...
> 
> The militia is necessary, but that does not preclude the people being armed.
> 
> Some might argue that this applies only to the federal government and that state and local governments are free to infringe all they want... but that's another discussion...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there are no natural rights in our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whether the rights are natural or not, the 2nd guarantees an individual right.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't.  It guarantees a civil right that is applied to individuals.


----------



## danielpalos

hjmick said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> there are no natural rights in our Second Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did I say anything about "natural rights"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is where you would have to get Individual rights to do, what is claimed by the right wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Go peddle your bullshit to them, I'm talking about rights granted by our Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't know what You are talking about; like Usual for the right wing.
> 
> Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Again, where did I mention anything about natural rights?
> 
> You have a comprehension problem.
Click to expand...

You don't know what you are talking about.  That is all.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.   THey are completely unqualified.
> 
> 
> 
> Regulate them well, until there are no more excuses, only results.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Regulating is not the same as training.   They can be regulated and they would still be completely unqualified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is the same.  Wellness of regulation, requires discipline and training.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Regulation for a militia is most certainly NOT the same as the training to be a qualified law enforcement officer.   Not even close.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it must.  There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.
Click to expand...


No, it isn't.   Training for a police officer is completely different from militia training.   Militia training is basically military training.   Not law enforcement.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> Applying 21st Century mores to 18th Century thinking is an exercise in vanity.
> 
> The militia is bound to the right.  The right is not bound to the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to follow the meaning of the 2nd amendment, the Militia is bound to the Government which should be neither right nor left, it just is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why there is a comma separating the militia from the people in the Second...
> 
> They knew that a government, a country, needed an armed force to defend itself and its citizens. At the same time, they had just broken free from a ruler and government they considered tyrannical and recognized that there is always the potential for a ruler or government to go bad, thus the right of the people to keep and bear Arms...
> 
> The militia is necessary, but that does not preclude the people being armed.
> 
> Some might argue that this applies only to the federal government and that state and local governments are free to infringe all they want... but that's another discussion...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there are no natural rights in our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whether the rights are natural or not, the 2nd guarantees an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't.  It guarantees a civil right that is applied to individuals.[/QUO]
> 
> No, it has repeatedly been ruled an individual right.
Click to expand...


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Regulate them well, until there are no more excuses, only results.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regulating is not the same as training.   They can be regulated and they would still be completely unqualified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is the same.  Wellness of regulation, requires discipline and training.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Regulation for a militia is most certainly NOT the same as the training to be a qualified law enforcement officer.   Not even close.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it must.  There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it isn't.   Training for a police officer is completely different from militia training.   Militia training is basically military training.   Not law enforcement.
Click to expand...

It is why, the militia should be well regulated, to lower our security problems.


----------



## Marion Morrison

I'd say so leftists faggots can't do exactly what they're trying to.

Aww, no.


----------



## Marion Morrison

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Regulating is not the same as training.   They can be regulated and they would still be completely unqualified.
> 
> 
> 
> it is the same.  Wellness of regulation, requires discipline and training.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Regulation for a militia is most certainly NOT the same as the training to be a qualified law enforcement officer.   Not even close.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it must.  There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it isn't.   Training for a police officer is completely different from militia training.   Militia training is basically military training.   Not law enforcement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is why, the militia should be well regulated, to lower our security problems.
Click to expand...


"Well regulated" means "in proper working order"
Beta cuck.


----------



## danielpalos

Marion Morrison said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is the same.  Wellness of regulation, requires discipline and training.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regulation for a militia is most certainly NOT the same as the training to be a qualified law enforcement officer.   Not even close.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it must.  There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it isn't.   Training for a police officer is completely different from militia training.   Militia training is basically military training.   Not law enforcement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is why, the militia should be well regulated, to lower our security problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Well regulated" means "in proper working order"
> Beta cuck.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't.  That is why, nobody on the left takes the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.  

The right wing has nothing but appeals to ignorance of our supreme law of the land. 



> 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 for the Militia of the United States must be prescribed by our federal Congress.


----------



## Marion Morrison

danielpalos said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Regulation for a militia is most certainly NOT the same as the training to be a qualified law enforcement officer.   Not even close.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it must.  There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it isn't.   Training for a police officer is completely different from militia training.   Militia training is basically military training.   Not law enforcement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is why, the militia should be well regulated, to lower our security problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Well regulated" means "in proper working order"
> Beta cuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't.  That is why, nobody on the left takes the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.
> 
> The right wing has nothing but appeals to ignorance of our supreme law of the land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wellness of Regulation for the Militia of the United States must be prescribed by our federal Congress.
Click to expand...

Actually it does.

"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."

http://constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm


----------



## danielpalos

Marion Morrison said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it must.  There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it isn't.   Training for a police officer is completely different from militia training.   Militia training is basically military training.   Not law enforcement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is why, the militia should be well regulated, to lower our security problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Well regulated" means "in proper working order"
> Beta cuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't.  That is why, nobody on the left takes the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.
> 
> The right wing has nothing but appeals to ignorance of our supreme law of the land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wellness of Regulation for the Militia of the United States must be prescribed by our federal Congress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually it does.
> 
> "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."
> 
> http://constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
Click to expand...

There is no appeal to ignorance of our supreme law of the land, right wingers; who's side are y'all on, anyway.


----------



## Marion Morrison

danielpalos said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it isn't.   Training for a police officer is completely different from militia training.   Militia training is basically military training.   Not law enforcement.
> 
> 
> 
> It is why, the militia should be well regulated, to lower our security problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Well regulated" means "in proper working order"
> Beta cuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't.  That is why, nobody on the left takes the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.
> 
> The right wing has nothing but appeals to ignorance of our supreme law of the land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wellness of Regulation for the Militia of the United States must be prescribed by our federal Congress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually it does.
> 
> "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."
> 
> http://constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of our supreme law of the land, right wingers; who's side are y'all on, anyway.
Click to expand...


The side of free American citizens, you washy washy reject.

danielpalos , the guy that can't get laid in a massage parlor.


----------



## danielpalos

Marion Morrison said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is why, the militia should be well regulated, to lower our security problems.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Well regulated" means "in proper working order"
> Beta cuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't.  That is why, nobody on the left takes the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.
> 
> The right wing has nothing but appeals to ignorance of our supreme law of the land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wellness of Regulation for the Militia of the United States must be prescribed by our federal Congress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually it does.
> 
> "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."
> 
> http://constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of our supreme law of the land, right wingers; who's side are y'all on, anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The side of free American citizens, you washy washy reject.
Click to expand...

with nothing but appeals to ignorance?  i don't think so.


----------



## Marion Morrison

danielpalos said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Well regulated" means "in proper working order"
> Beta cuck.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't.  That is why, nobody on the left takes the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.
> 
> The right wing has nothing but appeals to ignorance of our supreme law of the land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wellness of Regulation for the Militia of the United States must be prescribed by our federal Congress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually it does.
> 
> "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."
> 
> http://constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of our supreme law of the land, right wingers; who's side are y'all on, anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The side of free American citizens, you washy washy reject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> with nothing but appeals to ignorance?  i don't think so.
Click to expand...


I've had more handjobs than you've ever dreamed about, boy.


----------



## Pop23

danielpalos said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Well regulated" means "in proper working order"
> Beta cuck.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't.  That is why, nobody on the left takes the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.
> 
> The right wing has nothing but appeals to ignorance of our supreme law of the land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wellness of Regulation for the Militia of the United States must be prescribed by our federal Congress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually it does.
> 
> "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."
> 
> http://constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of our supreme law of the land, right wingers; who's side are y'all on, anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The side of free American citizens, you washy washy reject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> with nothing but appeals to ignorance?  i don't think so.
Click to expand...


You are ignorant, and unappealing


----------



## Pop23

danielpalos said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Well regulated" means "in proper working order"
> Beta cuck.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't.  That is why, nobody on the left takes the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.
> 
> The right wing has nothing but appeals to ignorance of our supreme law of the land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wellness of Regulation for the Militia of the United States must be prescribed by our federal Congress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually it does.
> 
> "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."
> 
> http://constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of our supreme law of the land, right wingers; who's side are y'all on, anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The side of free American citizens, you washy washy reject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> with nothing but appeals to ignorance?  i don't think so.
Click to expand...


You do realize that by writing that, you look a fool, right?


----------



## danielpalos

Pop23 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't.  That is why, nobody on the left takes the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.
> 
> The right wing has nothing but appeals to ignorance of our supreme law of the land.
> 
> Wellness of Regulation for the Militia of the United States must be prescribed by our federal Congress.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it does.
> 
> "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."
> 
> http://constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of our supreme law of the land, right wingers; who's side are y'all on, anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The side of free American citizens, you washy washy reject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> with nothing but appeals to ignorance?  i don't think so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are ignorant, and unappealing
Click to expand...

so what; you have nothing but fallacy.


----------



## danielpalos

Pop23 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't.  That is why, nobody on the left takes the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.
> 
> The right wing has nothing but appeals to ignorance of our supreme law of the land.
> 
> Wellness of Regulation for the Militia of the United States must be prescribed by our federal Congress.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it does.
> 
> "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."
> 
> http://constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of our supreme law of the land, right wingers; who's side are y'all on, anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The side of free American citizens, you washy washy reject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> with nothing but appeals to ignorance?  i don't think so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do realize that by writing that, you look a fool, right?
Click to expand...

the ones who resort to the most fallacies, are the most foolish.


----------



## Marion Morrison

danielpalos said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it does.
> 
> "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."
> 
> http://constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
> 
> 
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of our supreme law of the land, right wingers; who's side are y'all on, anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The side of free American citizens, you washy washy reject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> with nothing but appeals to ignorance?  i don't think so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are ignorant, and unappealing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so what; you have nothing but fallacy.
Click to expand...


I disagree, and you fail, next!


----------



## Pop23

danielpalos said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it does.
> 
> "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."
> 
> http://constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
> 
> 
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of our supreme law of the land, right wingers; who's side are y'all on, anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The side of free American citizens, you washy washy reject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> with nothing but appeals to ignorance?  i don't think so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are ignorant, and unappealing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so what; you have nothing but fallacy.
Click to expand...


And a massive dick. 

Which makes you a fool and the lesser of me.


----------



## danielpalos

Marion Morrison said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of our supreme law of the land, right wingers; who's side are y'all on, anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The side of free American citizens, you washy washy reject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> with nothing but appeals to ignorance?  i don't think so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are ignorant, and unappealing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so what; you have nothing but fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree, and you fail, next!
Click to expand...

you have nothing but fallacy.  i don't even have to disagree.


----------



## Pop23

danielpalos said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it does.
> 
> "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."
> 
> http://constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
> 
> 
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of our supreme law of the land, right wingers; who's side are y'all on, anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The side of free American citizens, you washy washy reject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> with nothing but appeals to ignorance?  i don't think so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do realize that by writing that, you look a fool, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the ones who resort to the most fallacies, are the most foolish.
Click to expand...


You like looking all girly?


----------



## danielpalos

Our federal Constitution is written the way it is, Because there is no provision for excuses in the federal doctrine, only results.


----------



## Marion Morrison

danielpalos the guy that can't get laid in a whorehouse.

The 2nd amendment was written the way it was so there was no wiggle room for faggots like danielpalos to get it wrong.

Somehow, they do anyways.

It's OK, wrong is wrong.


----------



## Flopper

hjmick said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> Applying 21st Century mores to 18th Century thinking is an exercise in vanity.
> 
> The militia is bound to the right.  The right is not bound to the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to follow the meaning of the 2nd amendment, the Militia is bound to the Government which should be neither right nor left, it just is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why there is a comma separating the militia from the people in the Second...
> 
> They knew that a government, a country, needed an armed force to defend itself and its citizens. At the same time, they had just broken free from a ruler and government they considered tyrannical and recognized that there is always the potential for a ruler or government to go bad, thus the right of the people to keep and bear Arms...
> 
> The militia is necessary, but that does not preclude the people being armed.
> 
> Some might argue that this applies only to the federal government and that state and local governments are free to infringe all they want... but that's another discussion...
Click to expand...




hjmick said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> Applying 21st Century mores to 18th Century thinking is an exercise in vanity.
> 
> The militia is bound to the right.  The right is not bound to the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to follow the meaning of the 2nd amendment, the Militia is bound to the Government which should be neither right nor left, it just is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why there is a comma separating the militia from the people in the Second...
> 
> They knew that a government, a country, needed an armed force to defend itself and its citizens. At the same time, they had just broken free from a ruler and government they considered tyrannical and recognized that there is always the potential for a ruler or government to go bad, thus the right of the people to keep and bear Arms...
> 
> The militia is necessary, but that does not preclude the people being armed.
> 
> Some might argue that this applies only to the federal government and that state and local governments are free to infringe all they want... but that's another discussion...
Click to expand...

*I agree, the states certainly wanted an armed force to defend the nation. However, they did not agree as to what that armed force should be.  North Carolina and other states believed a volunteer citizens militia was the answer.  Other states believed the primary defense of the nation should be a standing army.  Washington expressed his displeasure with the undisciplined conduct and poor battlefield performance of the militia.  Washington blamed the Patriot reliance on the militia as the chief cause of his problems in the devastating loss of Long Island and Manhattan to the British.  He and other leaders supported a standing army as oppose to using state militias to defend the nation.

The purpose of 2nd amendment was to insure that arms would be availability in the future so volunteers could armed themselves and serve in the militia.   This satisfied supporters of the militias.   With the 2nd amendment guaranteeing the availability of arms they believed there would be no need for a standing army.  However, time would prove that Washington was correct.  The performance of the volunteer militias could not match professional soldier on the battlefield.

Had their been little support in the states for the militias, it is unlikely that there would have been a 2nd amendment because there was little interest in owning guns other than to serve in militias.  Also, wealthy businessmen and plantation owners were not keen about seeing guns in the hands of the poor and guns in the hands of slaves was terrifying so the 2nd amendment was not received well by these people. *


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

Flopper said:


> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> Applying 21st Century mores to 18th Century thinking is an exercise in vanity.
> 
> The militia is bound to the right.  The right is not bound to the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to follow the meaning of the 2nd amendment, the Militia is bound to the Government which should be neither right nor left, it just is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why there is a comma separating the militia from the people in the Second...
> 
> They knew that a government, a country, needed an armed force to defend itself and its citizens. At the same time, they had just broken free from a ruler and government they considered tyrannical and recognized that there is always the potential for a ruler or government to go bad, thus the right of the people to keep and bear Arms...
> 
> The militia is necessary, but that does not preclude the people being armed.
> 
> Some might argue that this applies only to the federal government and that state and local governments are free to infringe all they want... but that's another discussion...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> Applying 21st Century mores to 18th Century thinking is an exercise in vanity.
> 
> The militia is bound to the right.  The right is not bound to the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want to follow the meaning of the 2nd amendment, the Militia is bound to the Government which should be neither right nor left, it just is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why there is a comma separating the militia from the people in the Second...
> 
> They knew that a government, a country, needed an armed force to defend itself and its citizens. At the same time, they had just broken free from a ruler and government they considered tyrannical and recognized that there is always the potential for a ruler or government to go bad, thus the right of the people to keep and bear Arms...
> 
> The militia is necessary, but that does not preclude the people being armed.
> 
> Some might argue that this applies only to the federal government and that state and local governments are free to infringe all they want... but that's another discussion...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I agree, the states certainly wanted an armed force to defend the nation. However, they did not agree as to what that armed force should be.  North Carolina and other states believed a volunteer citizens militia was the answer.  Other states believed the primary defense of the nation should be a standing army.  Washington expressed his displeasure with the undisciplined conduct and poor battlefield performance of the militia.  Washington blamed the Patriot reliance on the militia as the chief cause of his problems in the devastating loss of Long Island and Manhattan to the British.  He and other leaders supported a standing army as oppose to using state militias to defend the nation.
> 
> The purpose of 2nd amendment was to insure that arms would be availability in the future so volunteers could armed themselves and serve in the militia.   This satisfied supporters of the militias.   With the 2nd amendment guaranteeing the availability of arms they believed there would be no need for a standing army.  However, time would prove that Washington was correct.  The performance of the volunteer militias could not match professional soldier on the battlefield.
> 
> Had their been little support in the states for the militias, it is unlikely that there would have been a 2nd amendment because there was little interest in owning guns other than to serve in militias.  Also, wealthy businessmen and plantation owners were not keen about seeing guns in the hands of poor and guns in the hands of slaves was terrifying so the 2nd amendment was not received well by these people. *
Click to expand...


Still pushing Bellesiles.  Too funny.


----------



## Flopper

danielpalos said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If the founders could have seen how many millions of hours were going to be wasted fighting over that silly clause they would have probably shortened the amendment to "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".   Or course the only reason for the amendment was to satisfy those states concerned about the militia having trained armed recruits, so they might have just dropped the whole amendment.
> 
> In those days, very few people were worried about the government taking away guns.  The damn things were cumbersome, slow loading, expensive, and too often blew in one's face.
> 
> The real hot issue in the Bill of Rights was the first amendment because a number of states had state sponsored religions. *
> 
> 
> 
> Our Constitution and supreme law of the land, was written, termed and styled such, for a Reason.  That reason is Order over Chaos, every time there is a Decision to be made.
> 
> There is No Provision for excuses in the federal doctrine, Only results.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Keep in mind the constitution, like all pieces of legislation was a compromise. The two political sects, the federalist lead by Alexander Hamilton and the Jeffersonian Democratic Republicans lead by Thomas Jefferson had opposing ideas as to how the new government would function.  The resulting political parties dominated the political landscape in all states.  Considering the political atmosphere in the late 18th century, the constitution, although not perfect was a remarkable document.
> 
> There are a number flaws in the constitution but probably the greatest is lack of change.  This of course gives the document a timeless nature, which in turn gives it a near sacred or mystical aura in the eyes of Americans.  Sacred timelessness is great for building a civic identity.  But it makes for really horrible law. The Constitution is far too difficult to amend, which means it cannot respond to changes in society and moral values.  By default it gives preference to a version of a moral and orderly society that fit a group of people long since dead, at the expense of a version that fits the group currently living.  A constitution is living or dead; ours is rapidly moving toward the latter.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree to disagree.  We could not do a better job, today.
Click to expand...

*We certainly could not re-write it today but we could start by making small changes, incorporating long accepted rulings of the supreme court, and eliminating some parts and replacing them with congressional legislation.  After several constitutional conventions over a period of years we could bring it update and more in keeping with the nation as it is today.*


----------



## Skull Pilot

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> Applying 21st Century mores to 18th Century thinking is an exercise in vanity.
> 
> The militia is bound to the right.  The right is not bound to the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to follow the meaning of the 2nd amendment, the Militia is bound to the Government which should be neither right nor left, it just is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why there is a comma separating the militia from the people in the Second...
> 
> They knew that a government, a country, needed an armed force to defend itself and its citizens. At the same time, they had just broken free from a ruler and government they considered tyrannical and recognized that there is always the potential for a ruler or government to go bad, thus the right of the people to keep and bear Arms...
> 
> The militia is necessary, but that does not preclude the people being armed.
> 
> Some might argue that this applies only to the federal government and that state and local governments are free to infringe all they want... but that's another discussion...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there are no natural rights in our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whether the rights are natural or not, the 2nd guarantees an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't.  It guarantees a civil right that is applied to individuals.
Click to expand...


The rights enumerated in the Constitution are unalienable meaning they cannot be divorced from the individual.  The governemnt has neither the power not the authority to grant these unalienable rights as they are inherent in the individual from the moment of birth.

This idea in an integral part of the Constitution.


----------



## Pop23

Flopper said:


> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> Applying 21st Century mores to 18th Century thinking is an exercise in vanity.
> 
> The militia is bound to the right.  The right is not bound to the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to follow the meaning of the 2nd amendment, the Militia is bound to the Government which should be neither right nor left, it just is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why there is a comma separating the militia from the people in the Second...
> 
> They knew that a government, a country, needed an armed force to defend itself and its citizens. At the same time, they had just broken free from a ruler and government they considered tyrannical and recognized that there is always the potential for a ruler or government to go bad, thus the right of the people to keep and bear Arms...
> 
> The militia is necessary, but that does not preclude the people being armed.
> 
> Some might argue that this applies only to the federal government and that state and local governments are free to infringe all they want... but that's another discussion...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> Applying 21st Century mores to 18th Century thinking is an exercise in vanity.
> 
> The militia is bound to the right.  The right is not bound to the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want to follow the meaning of the 2nd amendment, the Militia is bound to the Government which should be neither right nor left, it just is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why there is a comma separating the militia from the people in the Second...
> 
> They knew that a government, a country, needed an armed force to defend itself and its citizens. At the same time, they had just broken free from a ruler and government they considered tyrannical and recognized that there is always the potential for a ruler or government to go bad, thus the right of the people to keep and bear Arms...
> 
> The militia is necessary, but that does not preclude the people being armed.
> 
> Some might argue that this applies only to the federal government and that state and local governments are free to infringe all they want... but that's another discussion...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I agree, the states certainly wanted an armed force to defend the nation. However, they did not agree as to what that armed force should be.  North Carolina and other states believed a volunteer citizens militia was the answer.  Other states believed the primary defense of the nation should be a standing army.  Washington expressed his displeasure with the undisciplined conduct and poor battlefield performance of the militia.  Washington blamed the Patriot reliance on the militia as the chief cause of his problems in the devastating loss of Long Island and Manhattan to the British.  He and other leaders supported a standing army as oppose to using state militias to defend the nation.
> 
> The purpose of 2nd amendment was to insure that arms would be availability in the future so volunteers could armed themselves and serve in the militia.   This satisfied supporters of the militias.   With the 2nd amendment guaranteeing the availability of arms they believed there would be no need for a standing army.  However, time would prove that Washington was correct.  The performance of the volunteer militias could not match professional soldier on the battlefield.
> 
> Had their been little support in the states for the militias, it is unlikely that there would have been a 2nd amendment because there was little interest in owning guns other than to serve in militias.  Also, wealthy businessmen and plantation owners were not keen about seeing guns in the hands of the poor and guns in the hands of slaves was terrifying so the 2nd amendment was not received well by these people. *
Click to expand...


So the poster admits:



Flopper said:


> The purpose of 2nd amendment was to insure that arms would be availability* in the future *so volunteers could armed themselves and serve in the militia.



The right exists and has a defined purpose. The case should be closed at this point. The future is not defined as the next 20 years, the next 100 years or the next 1000 years. It is simply a possibility that never ends. That is exactly what "future" means.

So this is progress.

But then the poster implies that these rights for an unstated reason, the people should have this right restricted or eliminated.

So I ask, what does the poster hope to achieve by the removal of this right?

I can assume that it is to reduce death rates.

If that were the case, and since most of these homicides occur in small geographic areas, wouldn't the poster, seeking this goal, be better served in demanding that these Metro areas get this problem under control using the same method that the Federal Government has been successfully using for decades?

Get your house in order by reducing these numbers or the Federal Government will reduce or eliminate Federal Funding to your City/State.

We know that the restrictions or elimination of either a type of gun, or all guns, will not accomplish his goal because his proposal is reliant on the criminals, who are responsible for these deaths in the first place, adhering to law.

His proposal is based on pure speculation. Change law so that these murders will be reduced. If the theory had merit we would not be wasting time discussing it in the first place because laws prohibiting murder and assault already exists, as do the killings. It's not at all clear how adding one, two, five hundred or ten thousand new laws will defer these killings when the standing punishments for violating the current laws can be Life in Prison or Death. Expecting a criminal to adhere to an additional law, when violation of current laws can draw a penalty of Death, is nothing but a pipe dream and only leaves those that would be disarmed at a greater risk.

So what is the posters motive in seeking the restriction or elimination of this right, when the only people who would possibly be affected are those that do not contribute to the problem in the first place?

It is an odd argument being made, but the admittance that the right exists is indeed progress.


----------



## danielpalos

Marion Morrison said:


> danielpalos the guy that can't get laid in a whorehouse.
> 
> The 2nd amendment was written the way it was so there was no wiggle room for faggots like danielpalos to get it wrong.
> 
> Somehow, they do anyways.
> 
> It's OK, wrong is wrong.


only wo-men have to resort to fallacy.


----------



## danielpalos

Flopper said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If the founders could have seen how many millions of hours were going to be wasted fighting over that silly clause they would have probably shortened the amendment to "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".   Or course the only reason for the amendment was to satisfy those states concerned about the militia having trained armed recruits, so they might have just dropped the whole amendment.
> 
> In those days, very few people were worried about the government taking away guns.  The damn things were cumbersome, slow loading, expensive, and too often blew in one's face.
> 
> The real hot issue in the Bill of Rights was the first amendment because a number of states had state sponsored religions. *
> 
> 
> 
> Our Constitution and supreme law of the land, was written, termed and styled such, for a Reason.  That reason is Order over Chaos, every time there is a Decision to be made.
> 
> There is No Provision for excuses in the federal doctrine, Only results.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Keep in mind the constitution, like all pieces of legislation was a compromise. The two political sects, the federalist lead by Alexander Hamilton and the Jeffersonian Democratic Republicans lead by Thomas Jefferson had opposing ideas as to how the new government would function.  The resulting political parties dominated the political landscape in all states.  Considering the political atmosphere in the late 18th century, the constitution, although not perfect was a remarkable document.
> 
> There are a number flaws in the constitution but probably the greatest is lack of change.  This of course gives the document a timeless nature, which in turn gives it a near sacred or mystical aura in the eyes of Americans.  Sacred timelessness is great for building a civic identity.  But it makes for really horrible law. The Constitution is far too difficult to amend, which means it cannot respond to changes in society and moral values.  By default it gives preference to a version of a moral and orderly society that fit a group of people long since dead, at the expense of a version that fits the group currently living.  A constitution is living or dead; ours is rapidly moving toward the latter.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree to disagree.  We could not do a better job, today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *We certainly could not re-write it today but we could start by making small changes, incorporating long accepted rulings of the supreme court, and eliminating some parts and replacing them with congressional legislation.  After several constitutional conventions over a period of years we could bring it update and more in keeping with the nation as it is today.*
Click to expand...

There is nothing ambiguous about our supreme law of the land, just right wing appeals to ignorance.


----------



## Pop23

danielpalos said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos the guy that can't get laid in a whorehouse.
> 
> The 2nd amendment was written the way it was so there was no wiggle room for faggots like danielpalos to get it wrong.
> 
> Somehow, they do anyways.
> 
> It's OK, wrong is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> only wo-men have to resort to fallacy.
Click to expand...


Is that why you appear to care a lot about the safety of the rapist, and not so much about the safety of the victim. You hate women?


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to follow the meaning of the 2nd amendment, the Militia is bound to the Government which should be neither right nor left, it just is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why there is a comma separating the militia from the people in the Second...
> 
> They knew that a government, a country, needed an armed force to defend itself and its citizens. At the same time, they had just broken free from a ruler and government they considered tyrannical and recognized that there is always the potential for a ruler or government to go bad, thus the right of the people to keep and bear Arms...
> 
> The militia is necessary, but that does not preclude the people being armed.
> 
> Some might argue that this applies only to the federal government and that state and local governments are free to infringe all they want... but that's another discussion...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there are no natural rights in our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whether the rights are natural or not, the 2nd guarantees an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't.  It guarantees a civil right that is applied to individuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rights enumerated in the Constitution are unalienable meaning they cannot be divorced from the individual.  The governemnt has neither the power not the authority to grant these unalienable rights as they are inherent in the individual from the moment of birth.
> 
> This idea in an integral part of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

There are no individual rights in our Second Amendment.  Unalienable rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

What the right wing wants to do, is infringe upon the doctrine of separation of powers, without just Cause.


----------



## danielpalos

Pop23 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos the guy that can't get laid in a whorehouse.
> 
> The 2nd amendment was written the way it was so there was no wiggle room for faggots like danielpalos to get it wrong.
> 
> Somehow, they do anyways.
> 
> It's OK, wrong is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> only wo-men have to resort to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that why you appear to care a lot about the safety of the rapist, and not so much about the safety of the victim. You hate women?
Click to expand...

Only those who are full of fallacy must hate women more.  Why resort to the Badness of fallacy when you can resort to the sublime Goodness of sublime Truth (value) through argumentation.


----------



## WinterBorn

First DanielP claims the 2nd is a collective right designated to the states.   

Now citizens must earn their right by working construction or working as under qualified law enforcement.   No mention of how they will be paid.


----------



## Pop23

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why there is a comma separating the militia from the people in the Second...
> 
> They knew that a government, a country, needed an armed force to defend itself and its citizens. At the same time, they had just broken free from a ruler and government they considered tyrannical and recognized that there is always the potential for a ruler or government to go bad, thus the right of the people to keep and bear Arms...
> 
> The militia is necessary, but that does not preclude the people being armed.
> 
> Some might argue that this applies only to the federal government and that state and local governments are free to infringe all they want... but that's another discussion...
> 
> 
> 
> there are no natural rights in our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whether the rights are natural or not, the 2nd guarantees an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't.  It guarantees a civil right that is applied to individuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rights enumerated in the Constitution are unalienable meaning they cannot be divorced from the individual.  The governemnt has neither the power not the authority to grant these unalienable rights as they are inherent in the individual from the moment of birth.
> 
> This idea in an integral part of the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are no individual rights in our Second Amendment.  Unalienable rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.
> 
> What the right wing wants to do, is infringe upon the doctrine of separation of powers, without just Cause.
Click to expand...


And, exactly what problem are you trying to solve? Do you even know? Or just pissing in the wind again?


----------



## Pop23

WinterBorn said:


> First DanielP claims the 2nd is a collective right designated to the states.
> 
> Now citizens must earn their right by working construction or working as under qualified law enforcement.   No mention of how they will be paid.



He is an odd one


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos the guy that can't get laid in a whorehouse.
> 
> The 2nd amendment was written the way it was so there was no wiggle room for faggots like danielpalos to get it wrong.
> 
> Somehow, they do anyways.
> 
> It's OK, wrong is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> only wo-men have to resort to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that why you appear to care a lot about the safety of the rapist, and not so much about the safety of the victim. You hate women?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only those who are full of fallacy must hate women more.  Why resort to the Badness of fallacy when you can resort to the sublime Goodness of sublime Truth (value) through argumentation.
Click to expand...


Utter nonsense.    You have been shown to have absolutely no respect for women.   You think they exist to service your carnal desires.


----------



## Pop23

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos the guy that can't get laid in a whorehouse.
> 
> The 2nd amendment was written the way it was so there was no wiggle room for faggots like danielpalos to get it wrong.
> 
> Somehow, they do anyways.
> 
> It's OK, wrong is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> only wo-men have to resort to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that why you appear to care a lot about the safety of the rapist, and not so much about the safety of the victim. You hate women?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only those who are full of fallacy must hate women more.  Why resort to the Badness of fallacy when you can resort to the sublime Goodness of sublime Truth (value) through argumentation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Utter nonsense.    You have been shown to have absolutely no respect for women.   You think they exist to service your carnal desires.
Click to expand...


The thought of which made me throw up a little in my mouth.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> First DanielP claims the 2nd is a collective right designated to the states.
> 
> Now citizens must earn their right by working construction or working as under qualified law enforcement.   No mention of how they will be paid.


the militia and the security of a free State requires collective action of the People.


----------



## danielpalos

Pop23 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> there are no natural rights in our Second Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whether the rights are natural or not, the 2nd guarantees an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't.  It guarantees a civil right that is applied to individuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rights enumerated in the Constitution are unalienable meaning they cannot be divorced from the individual.  The governemnt has neither the power not the authority to grant these unalienable rights as they are inherent in the individual from the moment of birth.
> 
> This idea in an integral part of the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are no individual rights in our Second Amendment.  Unalienable rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.
> 
> What the right wing wants to do, is infringe upon the doctrine of separation of powers, without just Cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And, exactly what problem are you trying to solve? Do you even know? Or just pissing in the wind again?
Click to expand...

muster the militia of the People, until crime goes down.  it must be cheaper than our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos the guy that can't get laid in a whorehouse.
> 
> The 2nd amendment was written the way it was so there was no wiggle room for faggots like danielpalos to get it wrong.
> 
> Somehow, they do anyways.
> 
> It's OK, wrong is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> only wo-men have to resort to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that why you appear to care a lot about the safety of the rapist, and not so much about the safety of the victim. You hate women?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only those who are full of fallacy must hate women more.  Why resort to the Badness of fallacy when you can resort to the sublime Goodness of sublime Truth (value) through argumentation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Utter nonsense.    You have been shown to have absolutely no respect for women.   You think they exist to service your carnal desires.
Click to expand...

honesty is a form of respect, story teller.  not my fault, women have lousy female intuition.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> First DanielP claims the 2nd is a collective right designated to the states.
> 
> Now citizens must earn their right by working construction or working as under qualified law enforcement.   No mention of how they will be paid.
> 
> 
> 
> the militia and the security of a free State requires collective action of the People.
Click to expand...


But you want us building aqueducts and bridges to "earn" our constitutional rights.    That is not what a militia does.  Nor should it be.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos the guy that can't get laid in a whorehouse.
> 
> The 2nd amendment was written the way it was so there was no wiggle room for faggots like danielpalos to get it wrong.
> 
> Somehow, they do anyways.
> 
> It's OK, wrong is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> only wo-men have to resort to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that why you appear to care a lot about the safety of the rapist, and not so much about the safety of the victim. You hate women?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only those who are full of fallacy must hate women more.  Why resort to the Badness of fallacy when you can resort to the sublime Goodness of sublime Truth (value) through argumentation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Utter nonsense.    You have been shown to have absolutely no respect for women.   You think they exist to service your carnal desires.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> honesty is a form of respect, story teller.  not my fault, women have lousy female intuition.
Click to expand...


More pseudo-intellectual bullshit.   The fact that they do not offer you "your turn" (your words, not mine) has nothing to do with female intuition.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> First DanielP claims the 2nd is a collective right designated to the states.
> 
> Now citizens must earn their right by working construction or working as under qualified law enforcement.   No mention of how they will be paid.
> 
> 
> 
> the militia and the security of a free State requires collective action of the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you want us building aqueducts and bridges to "earn" our constitutional rights.    That is not what a militia does.  Nor should it be.
Click to expand...

that is Your story, bro.  it always gets taller the more You tell it.  

Our Second Amendment is about the security needs of a free State.



> 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.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> only wo-men have to resort to fallacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that why you appear to care a lot about the safety of the rapist, and not so much about the safety of the victim. You hate women?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only those who are full of fallacy must hate women more.  Why resort to the Badness of fallacy when you can resort to the sublime Goodness of sublime Truth (value) through argumentation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Utter nonsense.    You have been shown to have absolutely no respect for women.   You think they exist to service your carnal desires.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> honesty is a form of respect, story teller.  not my fault, women have lousy female intuition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More pseudo-intellectual bullshit.   The fact that they do not offer you "your turn" (your words, not mine) has nothing to do with female intuition.
Click to expand...

yes, it does; especially with turn based games.  you simply are not fun enough, story teller.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that why you appear to care a lot about the safety of the rapist, and not so much about the safety of the victim. You hate women?
> 
> 
> 
> Only those who are full of fallacy must hate women more.  Why resort to the Badness of fallacy when you can resort to the sublime Goodness of sublime Truth (value) through argumentation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Utter nonsense.    You have been shown to have absolutely no respect for women.   You think they exist to service your carnal desires.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> honesty is a form of respect, story teller.  not my fault, women have lousy female intuition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More pseudo-intellectual bullshit.   The fact that they do not offer you "your turn" (your words, not mine) has nothing to do with female intuition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, it does; especially with turn based games.  you simply are not fun enough, story teller.
Click to expand...


Horseshit.    Demanding "your turn" shows a complete lack of respect for women.   You have said that whether they want you or not is irrelevant.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> First DanielP claims the 2nd is a collective right designated to the states.
> 
> Now citizens must earn their right by working construction or working as under qualified law enforcement.   No mention of how they will be paid.
> 
> 
> 
> the militia and the security of a free State requires collective action of the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you want us building aqueducts and bridges to "earn" our constitutional rights.    That is not what a militia does.  Nor should it be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is Your story, bro.  it always gets taller the more You tell it.
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security needs of a free State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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...


How is building aqueducts and bridges a security concern?

You are simply rewriting the definition of "militia" to suit your agenda.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only those who are full of fallacy must hate women more.  Why resort to the Badness of fallacy when you can resort to the sublime Goodness of sublime Truth (value) through argumentation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Utter nonsense.    You have been shown to have absolutely no respect for women.   You think they exist to service your carnal desires.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> honesty is a form of respect, story teller.  not my fault, women have lousy female intuition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More pseudo-intellectual bullshit.   The fact that they do not offer you "your turn" (your words, not mine) has nothing to do with female intuition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, it does; especially with turn based games.  you simply are not fun enough, story teller.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Horseshit.    Demanding "your turn" shows a complete lack of respect for women.   You have said that whether they want you or not is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

what if it was, truth or dare?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> First DanielP claims the 2nd is a collective right designated to the states.
> 
> Now citizens must earn their right by working construction or working as under qualified law enforcement.   No mention of how they will be paid.
> 
> 
> 
> the militia and the security of a free State requires collective action of the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you want us building aqueducts and bridges to "earn" our constitutional rights.    That is not what a militia does.  Nor should it be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is Your story, bro.  it always gets taller the more You tell it.
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security needs of a free State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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...
> 
> 
> How is building aqueducts and bridges a security concern?
> 
> You are simply rewriting the definition of "militia" to suit your agenda.
Click to expand...

just your special pleading and taking my arguments out of context, like story tellers are wont to do.


----------



## Pop23

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> First DanielP claims the 2nd is a collective right designated to the states.
> 
> Now citizens must earn their right by working construction or working as under qualified law enforcement.   No mention of how they will be paid.
> 
> 
> 
> the militia and the security of a free State requires collective action of the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you want us building aqueducts and bridges to "earn" our constitutional rights.    That is not what a militia does.  Nor should it be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is Your story, bro.  it always gets taller the more You tell it.
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security needs of a free State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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...


The security of the state is the point of the militia. The security of the people, which are secured via law is the responsibility of law enforcement.

You make no sense.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Utter nonsense.    You have been shown to have absolutely no respect for women.   You think they exist to service your carnal desires.
> 
> 
> 
> honesty is a form of respect, story teller.  not my fault, women have lousy female intuition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More pseudo-intellectual bullshit.   The fact that they do not offer you "your turn" (your words, not mine) has nothing to do with female intuition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, it does; especially with turn based games.  you simply are not fun enough, story teller.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Horseshit.    Demanding "your turn" shows a complete lack of respect for women.   You have said that whether they want you or not is irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what if it was, truth or dare?
Click to expand...


She still gets to say no to sexual contact with you.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> First DanielP claims the 2nd is a collective right designated to the states.
> 
> Now citizens must earn their right by working construction or working as under qualified law enforcement.   No mention of how they will be paid.
> 
> 
> 
> the militia and the security of a free State requires collective action of the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you want us building aqueducts and bridges to "earn" our constitutional rights.    That is not what a militia does.  Nor should it be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is Your story, bro.  it always gets taller the more You tell it.
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security needs of a free State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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...
> 
> 
> How is building aqueducts and bridges a security concern?
> 
> You are simply rewriting the definition of "militia" to suit your agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just your special pleading and taking my arguments out of context, like story tellers are wont to do.
Click to expand...


You were the one suggesting building aqueducts and bridges when we were discussing militia.


----------



## danielpalos

Pop23 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> First DanielP claims the 2nd is a collective right designated to the states.
> 
> Now citizens must earn their right by working construction or working as under qualified law enforcement.   No mention of how they will be paid.
> 
> 
> 
> the militia and the security of a free State requires collective action of the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you want us building aqueducts and bridges to "earn" our constitutional rights.    That is not what a militia does.  Nor should it be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is Your story, bro.  it always gets taller the more You tell it.
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security needs of a free State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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...
> 
> 
> The security of the state is the point of the militia. The security of the people, which are secured via law is the responsibility of law enforcement.
> 
> You make no sense.
Click to expand...

I make sense; you simply have no sense, and have to make up stories. 

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.  Why not read our federal Constitution.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> honesty is a form of respect, story teller.  not my fault, women have lousy female intuition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More pseudo-intellectual bullshit.   The fact that they do not offer you "your turn" (your words, not mine) has nothing to do with female intuition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, it does; especially with turn based games.  you simply are not fun enough, story teller.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Horseshit.    Demanding "your turn" shows a complete lack of respect for women.   You have said that whether they want you or not is irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what if it was, truth or dare?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She still gets to say no to sexual contact with you.
Click to expand...

it can be like, soo difficult to find nice girls for free, when i don't have any money under Any form of Capitalism.


----------



## Pop23

danielpalos said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> First DanielP claims the 2nd is a collective right designated to the states.
> 
> Now citizens must earn their right by working construction or working as under qualified law enforcement.   No mention of how they will be paid.
> 
> 
> 
> the militia and the security of a free State requires collective action of the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you want us building aqueducts and bridges to "earn" our constitutional rights.    That is not what a militia does.  Nor should it be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is Your story, bro.  it always gets taller the more You tell it.
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security needs of a free State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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...
> 
> 
> The security of the state is the point of the militia. The security of the people, which are secured via law is the responsibility of law enforcement.
> 
> You make no sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I make sense; you simply have no sense, and have to make up stories.
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.  Why not read our federal Constitution.
Click to expand...


I have, not sure what yours says, but then again, I've never been to Cuba.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> the militia and the security of a free State requires collective action of the People.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you want us building aqueducts and bridges to "earn" our constitutional rights.    That is not what a militia does.  Nor should it be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is Your story, bro.  it always gets taller the more You tell it.
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security needs of a free State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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...
> 
> 
> How is building aqueducts and bridges a security concern?
> 
> You are simply rewriting the definition of "militia" to suit your agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just your special pleading and taking my arguments out of context, like story tellers are wont to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You were the one suggesting building aqueducts and bridges when we were discussing militia.
Click to expand...

It worked for the Romans.


----------



## danielpalos

Pop23 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> the militia and the security of a free State requires collective action of the People.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you want us building aqueducts and bridges to "earn" our constitutional rights.    That is not what a militia does.  Nor should it be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is Your story, bro.  it always gets taller the more You tell it.
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security needs of a free State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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...
> 
> 
> The security of the state is the point of the militia. The security of the people, which are secured via law is the responsibility of law enforcement.
> 
> You make no sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I make sense; you simply have no sense, and have to make up stories.
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.  Why not read our federal Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have, not sure what yours says, but then again, I've never been to Cuba.
Click to expand...

this is exactly why, i never take the right wing seriously.  all they have is fallacy and appeals to ignorance.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> More pseudo-intellectual bullshit.   The fact that they do not offer you "your turn" (your words, not mine) has nothing to do with female intuition.
> 
> 
> 
> yes, it does; especially with turn based games.  you simply are not fun enough, story teller.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Horseshit.    Demanding "your turn" shows a complete lack of respect for women.   You have said that whether they want you or not is irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what if it was, truth or dare?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She still gets to say no to sexual contact with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it can be like, soo difficult to find nice girls for free, when i don't have any money under Any form of Capitalism.
Click to expand...


I have never had any problem.  But then, I did try to exploit them from the beginning.   You don't want someone to date.  You want someone to submit.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you want us building aqueducts and bridges to "earn" our constitutional rights.    That is not what a militia does.  Nor should it be.
> 
> 
> 
> that is Your story, bro.  it always gets taller the more You tell it.
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security needs of a free State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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...
> 
> 
> How is building aqueducts and bridges a security concern?
> 
> You are simply rewriting the definition of "militia" to suit your agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just your special pleading and taking my arguments out of context, like story tellers are wont to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You were the one suggesting building aqueducts and bridges when we were discussing militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It worked for the Romans.
Click to expand...


So?   Are we now discussing the Roman Empire?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> that is Your story, bro.  it always gets taller the more You tell it.
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security needs of a free State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is building aqueducts and bridges a security concern?
> 
> You are simply rewriting the definition of "militia" to suit your agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just your special pleading and taking my arguments out of context, like story tellers are wont to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You were the one suggesting building aqueducts and bridges when we were discussing militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It worked for the Romans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So?   Are we now discussing the Roman Empire?
Click to expand...

we do have a Senate.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes, it does; especially with turn based games.  you simply are not fun enough, story teller.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Horseshit.    Demanding "your turn" shows a complete lack of respect for women.   You have said that whether they want you or not is irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what if it was, truth or dare?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She still gets to say no to sexual contact with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it can be like, soo difficult to find nice girls for free, when i don't have any money under Any form of Capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have never had any problem.  But then, I did try to exploit them from the beginning.   You don't want someone to date.  You want someone to submit.
Click to expand...

do Only right wing women whine about not being able to handle uncommitted sex on their gender studies?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Horseshit.    Demanding "your turn" shows a complete lack of respect for women.   You have said that whether they want you or not is irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> what if it was, truth or dare?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She still gets to say no to sexual contact with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it can be like, soo difficult to find nice girls for free, when i don't have any money under Any form of Capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have never had any problem.  But then, I did try to exploit them from the beginning.   You don't want someone to date.  You want someone to submit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> do Only right wing women whine about not being able to handle uncommitted sex on their gender studies?
Click to expand...


Did I say anything about uncommitted sex?    But uncommitted sex and demanding "your turn" are different things.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you want us building aqueducts and bridges to "earn" our constitutional rights.    That is not what a militia does.  Nor should it be.
> 
> 
> 
> that is Your story, bro.  it always gets taller the more You tell it.
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security needs of a free State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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...
> 
> 
> How is building aqueducts and bridges a security concern?
> 
> You are simply rewriting the definition of "militia" to suit your agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just your special pleading and taking my arguments out of context, like story tellers are wont to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You were the one suggesting building aqueducts and bridges when we were discussing militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It worked for the Romans.
Click to expand...


So you are saying the Romans used civilian militia to build infrastructure?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> what if it was, truth or dare?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She still gets to say no to sexual contact with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it can be like, soo difficult to find nice girls for free, when i don't have any money under Any form of Capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have never had any problem.  But then, I did try to exploit them from the beginning.   You don't want someone to date.  You want someone to submit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> do Only right wing women whine about not being able to handle uncommitted sex on their gender studies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did I say anything about uncommitted sex?    But uncommitted sex and demanding "your turn" are different things.
Click to expand...

taking things out of context is a right wing specialty.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> that is Your story, bro.  it always gets taller the more You tell it.
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security needs of a free State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is building aqueducts and bridges a security concern?
> 
> You are simply rewriting the definition of "militia" to suit your agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just your special pleading and taking my arguments out of context, like story tellers are wont to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You were the one suggesting building aqueducts and bridges when we were discussing militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It worked for the Romans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are saying the Romans used civilian militia to build infrastructure?
Click to expand...

wellness of regulation, what a concept.


----------



## Skull Pilot

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why there is a comma separating the militia from the people in the Second...
> 
> They knew that a government, a country, needed an armed force to defend itself and its citizens. At the same time, they had just broken free from a ruler and government they considered tyrannical and recognized that there is always the potential for a ruler or government to go bad, thus the right of the people to keep and bear Arms...
> 
> The militia is necessary, but that does not preclude the people being armed.
> 
> Some might argue that this applies only to the federal government and that state and local governments are free to infringe all they want... but that's another discussion...
> 
> 
> 
> there are no natural rights in our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whether the rights are natural or not, the 2nd guarantees an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't.  It guarantees a civil right that is applied to individuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rights enumerated in the Constitution are unalienable meaning they cannot be divorced from the individual.  The governemnt has neither the power not the authority to grant these unalienable rights as they are inherent in the individual from the moment of birth.
> 
> This idea in an integral part of the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are no individual rights in our Second Amendment.  Unalienable rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.
> 
> What the right wing wants to do, is infringe upon the doctrine of separation of powers, without just Cause.
Click to expand...


Every right is an individual right.

Every right enumerated in the Constitution is not granted by the government therefore cannot be take away by the government

And the Constitution also states that the rights listed in the Bill of rights are not the only rights an individual has

The authors of the Bill of Rights believed the 10 rights they started with to be some of the most important therefore in need of the most protection


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> there are no natural rights in our Second Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whether the rights are natural or not, the 2nd guarantees an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't.  It guarantees a civil right that is applied to individuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rights enumerated in the Constitution are unalienable meaning they cannot be divorced from the individual.  The governemnt has neither the power not the authority to grant these unalienable rights as they are inherent in the individual from the moment of birth.
> 
> This idea in an integral part of the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are no individual rights in our Second Amendment.  Unalienable rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.
> 
> What the right wing wants to do, is infringe upon the doctrine of separation of powers, without just Cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every right is an individual right.
> 
> Every right enumerated in the Constitution is not granted by the government therefore cannot be take away by the government
> 
> And the Constitution also states that the rights listed in the Bill of rights are not the only rights an individual has
> 
> The authors of the Bill of Rights believed the 10 rights they started with to be some of the most important therefore in need of the most protection
Click to expand...

No, they are aren't.  They are civil rights, expressly declared.


----------



## Skull Pilot

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether the rights are natural or not, the 2nd guarantees an individual right.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't.  It guarantees a civil right that is applied to individuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rights enumerated in the Constitution are unalienable meaning they cannot be divorced from the individual.  The governemnt has neither the power not the authority to grant these unalienable rights as they are inherent in the individual from the moment of birth.
> 
> This idea in an integral part of the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are no individual rights in our Second Amendment.  Unalienable rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.
> 
> What the right wing wants to do, is infringe upon the doctrine of separation of powers, without just Cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every right is an individual right.
> 
> Every right enumerated in the Constitution is not granted by the government therefore cannot be take away by the government
> 
> And the Constitution also states that the rights listed in the Bill of rights are not the only rights an individual has
> 
> The authors of the Bill of Rights believed the 10 rights they started with to be some of the most important therefore in need of the most protection
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, they are aren't.  They are civil rights, expressly declared.
Click to expand...


Every single right belongs to the individual
Every right that belongs to the individual is his from birth

The government does not have the authority to grant or revoke these rights.

These tenets are the bedrock of the Constitution.

Bill of Rights - Bill of Rights Institute

*The first 10 amendments to the Constitution make up the Bill of Rights. James Madison wrote the amendments, which list specific prohibitions on governmental power, in response to calls from several states for greater constitutional protection for individual liberties.*


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't.  It guarantees a civil right that is applied to individuals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The rights enumerated in the Constitution are unalienable meaning they cannot be divorced from the individual.  The governemnt has neither the power not the authority to grant these unalienable rights as they are inherent in the individual from the moment of birth.
> 
> This idea in an integral part of the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are no individual rights in our Second Amendment.  Unalienable rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.
> 
> What the right wing wants to do, is infringe upon the doctrine of separation of powers, without just Cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every right is an individual right.
> 
> Every right enumerated in the Constitution is not granted by the government therefore cannot be take away by the government
> 
> And the Constitution also states that the rights listed in the Bill of rights are not the only rights an individual has
> 
> The authors of the Bill of Rights believed the 10 rights they started with to be some of the most important therefore in need of the most protection
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, they are aren't.  They are civil rights, expressly declared.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every single right belongs to the individual
> Every right that belongs to the individual is his from birth
> 
> The government does not have the authority to grant or revoke these rights.
> 
> These tenets are the bedrock of the Constitution.
> 
> Bill of Rights - Bill of Rights Institute
> 
> *The first 10 amendments to the Constitution make up the Bill of Rights. James Madison wrote the amendments, which list specific prohibitions on governmental power, in response to calls from several states for greater constitutional protection for individual liberties.*
Click to expand...

Our federal Constitution is one of express powers.  The right wing alleges implied powers.  Nobody on the left, should ever take the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't.  It guarantees a civil right that is applied to individuals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The rights enumerated in the Constitution are unalienable meaning they cannot be divorced from the individual.  The governemnt has neither the power not the authority to grant these unalienable rights as they are inherent in the individual from the moment of birth.
> 
> This idea in an integral part of the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are no individual rights in our Second Amendment.  Unalienable rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.
> 
> What the right wing wants to do, is infringe upon the doctrine of separation of powers, without just Cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every right is an individual right.
> 
> Every right enumerated in the Constitution is not granted by the government therefore cannot be take away by the government
> 
> And the Constitution also states that the rights listed in the Bill of rights are not the only rights an individual has
> 
> The authors of the Bill of Rights believed the 10 rights they started with to be some of the most important therefore in need of the most protection
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, they are aren't.  They are civil rights, expressly declared.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every single right belongs to the individual
> Every right that belongs to the individual is his from birth
> 
> The government does not have the authority to grant or revoke these rights.
> 
> These tenets are the bedrock of the Constitution.
> 
> Bill of Rights - Bill of Rights Institute
> 
> *The first 10 amendments to the Constitution make up the Bill of Rights. James Madison wrote the amendments, which list specific prohibitions on governmental power, in response to calls from several states for greater constitutional protection for individual liberties.*
Click to expand...


LOL, and yet these rights you claim all have exceptions under the law.


----------



## Flopper

Pop23 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> Applying 21st Century mores to 18th Century thinking is an exercise in vanity.
> 
> The militia is bound to the right.  The right is not bound to the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to follow the meaning of the 2nd amendment, the Militia is bound to the Government which should be neither right nor left, it just is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why there is a comma separating the militia from the people in the Second...
> 
> They knew that a government, a country, needed an armed force to defend itself and its citizens. At the same time, they had just broken free from a ruler and government they considered tyrannical and recognized that there is always the potential for a ruler or government to go bad, thus the right of the people to keep and bear Arms...
> 
> The militia is necessary, but that does not preclude the people being armed.
> 
> Some might argue that this applies only to the federal government and that state and local governments are free to infringe all they want... but that's another discussion...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> Applying 21st Century mores to 18th Century thinking is an exercise in vanity.
> 
> The militia is bound to the right.  The right is not bound to the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want to follow the meaning of the 2nd amendment, the Militia is bound to the Government which should be neither right nor left, it just is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why there is a comma separating the militia from the people in the Second...
> 
> They knew that a government, a country, needed an armed force to defend itself and its citizens. At the same time, they had just broken free from a ruler and government they considered tyrannical and recognized that there is always the potential for a ruler or government to go bad, thus the right of the people to keep and bear Arms...
> 
> The militia is necessary, but that does not preclude the people being armed.
> 
> Some might argue that this applies only to the federal government and that state and local governments are free to infringe all they want... but that's another discussion...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I agree, the states certainly wanted an armed force to defend the nation. However, they did not agree as to what that armed force should be.  North Carolina and other states believed a volunteer citizens militia was the answer.  Other states believed the primary defense of the nation should be a standing army.  Washington expressed his displeasure with the undisciplined conduct and poor battlefield performance of the militia.  Washington blamed the Patriot reliance on the militia as the chief cause of his problems in the devastating loss of Long Island and Manhattan to the British.  He and other leaders supported a standing army as oppose to using state militias to defend the nation.
> 
> The purpose of 2nd amendment was to insure that arms would be availability in the future so volunteers could armed themselves and serve in the militia.   This satisfied supporters of the militias.   With the 2nd amendment guaranteeing the availability of arms they believed there would be no need for a standing army.  However, time would prove that Washington was correct.  The performance of the volunteer militias could not match professional soldier on the battlefield.
> 
> Had their been little support in the states for the militias, it is unlikely that there would have been a 2nd amendment because there was little interest in owning guns other than to serve in militias.  Also, wealthy businessmen and plantation owners were not keen about seeing guns in the hands of the poor and guns in the hands of slaves was terrifying so the 2nd amendment was not received well by these people. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the poster admits:
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The purpose of 2nd amendment was to insure that arms would be availability* in the future *so volunteers could armed themselves and serve in the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right exists and has a defined purpose. The case should be closed at this point. The future is not defined as the next 20 years, the next 100 years or the next 1000 years. It is simply a possibility that never ends. That is exactly what "future" means.
> 
> So this is progress.
> 
> But then the poster implies that these rights for an unstated reason, the people should have this right restricted or eliminated.
> 
> So I ask, what does the poster hope to achieve by the removal of this right?
> 
> I can assume that it is to reduce death rates.
> 
> If that were the case, and since most of these homicides occur in small geographic areas, wouldn't the poster, seeking this goal, be better served in demanding that these Metro areas get this problem under control using the same method that the Federal Government has been successfully using for decades?
> 
> Get your house in order by reducing these numbers or the Federal Government will reduce or eliminate Federal Funding to your City/State.
> 
> We know that the restrictions or elimination of either a type of gun, or all guns, will not accomplish his goal because his proposal is reliant on the criminals, who are responsible for these deaths in the first place, adhering to law.
> 
> His proposal is based on pure speculation. Change law so that these murders will be reduced. If the theory had merit we would not be wasting time discussing it in the first place because laws prohibiting murder and assault already exists, as do the killings. It's not at all clear how adding one, two, five hundred or ten thousand new laws will defer these killings when the standing punishments for violating the current laws can be Life in Prison or Death. Expecting a criminal to adhere to an additional law, when violation of current laws can draw a penalty of Death, is nothing but a pipe dream and only leaves those that would be disarmed at a greater risk.
> 
> So what is the posters motive in seeking the restriction or elimination of this right, when the only people who would possibly be affected are those that do not contribute to the problem in the first place?
> 
> It is an odd argument being made, but the admittance that the right exists is indeed progress.
Click to expand...

*No.
The only purpose in the post is to point out that the justification for the 2nd amendment is to support militias and that justification no longer exist today.  We do not need militias for the defense of the nation.  Should the amendment exist today even thou the original justification is no longer valid?   One can claim that we need the second amendment to guarantee the right to bear arms for protection against other who bear arms or to hunt what remains of America's wildlife or to overthrow the goverment.  However, the founder justification does not exist today.*


----------



## Pop23

Flopper said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> Applying 21st Century mores to 18th Century thinking is an exercise in vanity.
> 
> The militia is bound to the right.  The right is not bound to the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to follow the meaning of the 2nd amendment, the Militia is bound to the Government which should be neither right nor left, it just is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why there is a comma separating the militia from the people in the Second...
> 
> They knew that a government, a country, needed an armed force to defend itself and its citizens. At the same time, they had just broken free from a ruler and government they considered tyrannical and recognized that there is always the potential for a ruler or government to go bad, thus the right of the people to keep and bear Arms...
> 
> The militia is necessary, but that does not preclude the people being armed.
> 
> Some might argue that this applies only to the federal government and that state and local governments are free to infringe all they want... but that's another discussion...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> Applying 21st Century mores to 18th Century thinking is an exercise in vanity.
> 
> The militia is bound to the right.  The right is not bound to the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want to follow the meaning of the 2nd amendment, the Militia is bound to the Government which should be neither right nor left, it just is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why there is a comma separating the militia from the people in the Second...
> 
> They knew that a government, a country, needed an armed force to defend itself and its citizens. At the same time, they had just broken free from a ruler and government they considered tyrannical and recognized that there is always the potential for a ruler or government to go bad, thus the right of the people to keep and bear Arms...
> 
> The militia is necessary, but that does not preclude the people being armed.
> 
> Some might argue that this applies only to the federal government and that state and local governments are free to infringe all they want... but that's another discussion...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I agree, the states certainly wanted an armed force to defend the nation. However, they did not agree as to what that armed force should be.  North Carolina and other states believed a volunteer citizens militia was the answer.  Other states believed the primary defense of the nation should be a standing army.  Washington expressed his displeasure with the undisciplined conduct and poor battlefield performance of the militia.  Washington blamed the Patriot reliance on the militia as the chief cause of his problems in the devastating loss of Long Island and Manhattan to the British.  He and other leaders supported a standing army as oppose to using state militias to defend the nation.
> 
> The purpose of 2nd amendment was to insure that arms would be availability in the future so volunteers could armed themselves and serve in the militia.   This satisfied supporters of the militias.   With the 2nd amendment guaranteeing the availability of arms they believed there would be no need for a standing army.  However, time would prove that Washington was correct.  The performance of the volunteer militias could not match professional soldier on the battlefield.
> 
> Had their been little support in the states for the militias, it is unlikely that there would have been a 2nd amendment because there was little interest in owning guns other than to serve in militias.  Also, wealthy businessmen and plantation owners were not keen about seeing guns in the hands of the poor and guns in the hands of slaves was terrifying so the 2nd amendment was not received well by these people. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the poster admits:
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The purpose of 2nd amendment was to insure that arms would be availability* in the future *so volunteers could armed themselves and serve in the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right exists and has a defined purpose. The case should be closed at this point. The future is not defined as the next 20 years, the next 100 years or the next 1000 years. It is simply a possibility that never ends. That is exactly what "future" means.
> 
> So this is progress.
> 
> But then the poster implies that these rights for an unstated reason, the people should have this right restricted or eliminated.
> 
> So I ask, what does the poster hope to achieve by the removal of this right?
> 
> I can assume that it is to reduce death rates.
> 
> If that were the case, and since most of these homicides occur in small geographic areas, wouldn't the poster, seeking this goal, be better served in demanding that these Metro areas get this problem under control using the same method that the Federal Government has been successfully using for decades?
> 
> Get your house in order by reducing these numbers or the Federal Government will reduce or eliminate Federal Funding to your City/State.
> 
> We know that the restrictions or elimination of either a type of gun, or all guns, will not accomplish his goal because his proposal is reliant on the criminals, who are responsible for these deaths in the first place, adhering to law.
> 
> His proposal is based on pure speculation. Change law so that these murders will be reduced. If the theory had merit we would not be wasting time discussing it in the first place because laws prohibiting murder and assault already exists, as do the killings. It's not at all clear how adding one, two, five hundred or ten thousand new laws will defer these killings when the standing punishments for violating the current laws can be Life in Prison or Death. Expecting a criminal to adhere to an additional law, when violation of current laws can draw a penalty of Death, is nothing but a pipe dream and only leaves those that would be disarmed at a greater risk.
> 
> So what is the posters motive in seeking the restriction or elimination of this right, when the only people who would possibly be affected are those that do not contribute to the problem in the first place?
> 
> It is an odd argument being made, but the admittance that the right exists is indeed progress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *No.
> The only purpose in the post is to point out that the justification for the 2nd amendment is to support militias and that justification no longer exist today.  We do not need militias for the defense of the nation.  Should the amendment exist today even thou the original justification is no longer valid?   One can claim that we need the second amendment to guarantee the right to bear arms for protection against other who bear arms or to hunt what remains of America's wildlife or to overthrow the goverment.  However, the founder justification does not exist today.*
Click to expand...


I used your exact words. 

Accept defeat. It was you that inflicted it.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

Flopper said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> Applying 21st Century mores to 18th Century thinking is an exercise in vanity.
> 
> The militia is bound to the right.  The right is not bound to the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to follow the meaning of the 2nd amendment, the Militia is bound to the Government which should be neither right nor left, it just is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why there is a comma separating the militia from the people in the Second...
> 
> They knew that a government, a country, needed an armed force to defend itself and its citizens. At the same time, they had just broken free from a ruler and government they considered tyrannical and recognized that there is always the potential for a ruler or government to go bad, thus the right of the people to keep and bear Arms...
> 
> The militia is necessary, but that does not preclude the people being armed.
> 
> Some might argue that this applies only to the federal government and that state and local governments are free to infringe all they want... but that's another discussion...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> Applying 21st Century mores to 18th Century thinking is an exercise in vanity.
> 
> The militia is bound to the right.  The right is not bound to the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want to follow the meaning of the 2nd amendment, the Militia is bound to the Government which should be neither right nor left, it just is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why there is a comma separating the militia from the people in the Second...
> 
> They knew that a government, a country, needed an armed force to defend itself and its citizens. At the same time, they had just broken free from a ruler and government they considered tyrannical and recognized that there is always the potential for a ruler or government to go bad, thus the right of the people to keep and bear Arms...
> 
> The militia is necessary, but that does not preclude the people being armed.
> 
> Some might argue that this applies only to the federal government and that state and local governments are free to infringe all they want... but that's another discussion...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I agree, the states certainly wanted an armed force to defend the nation. However, they did not agree as to what that armed force should be.  North Carolina and other states believed a volunteer citizens militia was the answer.  Other states believed the primary defense of the nation should be a standing army.  Washington expressed his displeasure with the undisciplined conduct and poor battlefield performance of the militia.  Washington blamed the Patriot reliance on the militia as the chief cause of his problems in the devastating loss of Long Island and Manhattan to the British.  He and other leaders supported a standing army as oppose to using state militias to defend the nation.
> 
> The purpose of 2nd amendment was to insure that arms would be availability in the future so volunteers could armed themselves and serve in the militia.   This satisfied supporters of the militias.   With the 2nd amendment guaranteeing the availability of arms they believed there would be no need for a standing army.  However, time would prove that Washington was correct.  The performance of the volunteer militias could not match professional soldier on the battlefield.
> 
> Had their been little support in the states for the militias, it is unlikely that there would have been a 2nd amendment because there was little interest in owning guns other than to serve in militias.  Also, wealthy businessmen and plantation owners were not keen about seeing guns in the hands of the poor and guns in the hands of slaves was terrifying so the 2nd amendment was not received well by these people. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the poster admits:
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The purpose of 2nd amendment was to insure that arms would be availability* in the future *so volunteers could armed themselves and serve in the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right exists and has a defined purpose. The case should be closed at this point. The future is not defined as the next 20 years, the next 100 years or the next 1000 years. It is simply a possibility that never ends. That is exactly what "future" means.
> 
> So this is progress.
> 
> But then the poster implies that these rights for an unstated reason, the people should have this right restricted or eliminated.
> 
> So I ask, what does the poster hope to achieve by the removal of this right?
> 
> I can assume that it is to reduce death rates.
> 
> If that were the case, and since most of these homicides occur in small geographic areas, wouldn't the poster, seeking this goal, be better served in demanding that these Metro areas get this problem under control using the same method that the Federal Government has been successfully using for decades?
> 
> Get your house in order by reducing these numbers or the Federal Government will reduce or eliminate Federal Funding to your City/State.
> 
> We know that the restrictions or elimination of either a type of gun, or all guns, will not accomplish his goal because his proposal is reliant on the criminals, who are responsible for these deaths in the first place, adhering to law.
> 
> His proposal is based on pure speculation. Change law so that these murders will be reduced. If the theory had merit we would not be wasting time discussing it in the first place because laws prohibiting murder and assault already exists, as do the killings. It's not at all clear how adding one, two, five hundred or ten thousand new laws will defer these killings when the standing punishments for violating the current laws can be Life in Prison or Death. Expecting a criminal to adhere to an additional law, when violation of current laws can draw a penalty of Death, is nothing but a pipe dream and only leaves those that would be disarmed at a greater risk.
> 
> So what is the posters motive in seeking the restriction or elimination of this right, when the only people who would possibly be affected are those that do not contribute to the problem in the first place?
> 
> It is an odd argument being made, but the admittance that the right exists is indeed progress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *No.
> The only purpose in the post is to point out that the justification for the 2nd amendment is to support militias and that justification no longer exist today.  We do not need militias for the defense of the nation.  Should the amendment exist today even thou the original justification is no longer valid?   One can claim that we need the second amendment to guarantee the right to bear arms for protection against other who bear arms or to hunt what remains of America's wildlife or to overthrow the goverment.  However, the founder justification does not exist today.*
Click to expand...


Complete nonsense.


----------



## danielpalos

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.



Our 2nd amendment has provided security for hundreds of thousands of homes and businesses.    But there will never be complete security, especially in a free society.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Wry Catcher said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The rights enumerated in the Constitution are unalienable meaning they cannot be divorced from the individual.  The governemnt has neither the power not the authority to grant these unalienable rights as they are inherent in the individual from the moment of birth.
> 
> This idea in an integral part of the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> There are no individual rights in our Second Amendment.  Unalienable rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.
> 
> What the right wing wants to do, is infringe upon the doctrine of separation of powers, without just Cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every right is an individual right.
> 
> Every right enumerated in the Constitution is not granted by the government therefore cannot be take away by the government
> 
> And the Constitution also states that the rights listed in the Bill of rights are not the only rights an individual has
> 
> The authors of the Bill of Rights believed the 10 rights they started with to be some of the most important therefore in need of the most protection
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, they are aren't.  They are civil rights, expressly declared.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every single right belongs to the individual
> Every right that belongs to the individual is his from birth
> 
> The government does not have the authority to grant or revoke these rights.
> 
> These tenets are the bedrock of the Constitution.
> 
> Bill of Rights - Bill of Rights Institute
> 
> *The first 10 amendments to the Constitution make up the Bill of Rights. James Madison wrote the amendments, which list specific prohibitions on governmental power, in response to calls from several states for greater constitutional protection for individual liberties.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, and yet these rights you claim all have exceptions under the law.
Click to expand...


Where did I ever say they didn't?

Your right to do anything stops if you infringe on another's rights.

IOW your right to swing your fist stops at another person's nose.

This is why I don't understand you control freaks.  I have a right to keep and bear arms but I do not have the right to fire a gun anywhere.  If I do fire a gun there is no presumed innocence and I have to justify my firing of that gun to the court.

You want to restrict my right to keep and bear even though it poses no harm to you whatsoever


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our 2nd amendment has provided security for hundreds of thousands of homes and businesses.    But there will never be complete security, especially in a free society.
Click to expand...

why do we need alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror the right wing refuses to pay for with appropriate tax rates?


----------



## WinterBorn

What sort of tax rates are you talking about?


----------



## hjmick

WinterBorn said:


> What sort of tax rates are you talking about?




Why do you bother?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> What sort of tax rates are you talking about?


wartime tax rates; or, the right wing is simply not serious and simply helping the rich get richer faster.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> What sort of tax rates are you talking about?
> 
> 
> 
> wartime tax rates; or, the right wing is simply not serious and simply helping the rich get richer faster.
Click to expand...


What are "wartime tax rates" and are we at war?


----------



## WinterBorn

hjmick said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> What sort of tax rates are you talking about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you bother?
Click to expand...


Right now I am enjoying another gin & tonic at a campsite in Cloudland Canyon State park as I watch the fire die down.   Why not ask him questions?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> What sort of tax rates are you talking about?
> 
> 
> 
> wartime tax rates; or, the right wing is simply not serious and simply helping the rich get richer faster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are "wartime tax rates" and are we at war?
Click to expand...

how can we have alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror, if we are not at war?



> In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore, we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> What sort of tax rates are you talking about?
> 
> 
> 
> wartime tax rates; or, the right wing is simply not serious and simply helping the rich get richer faster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are "wartime tax rates" and are we at war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how can we have alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror, if we are not at war?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore, we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Political catch-phrases do not mean we are at war.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> What sort of tax rates are you talking about?
> 
> 
> 
> wartime tax rates; or, the right wing is simply not serious and simply helping the rich get richer faster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are "wartime tax rates" and are we at war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how can we have alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror, if we are not at war?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore, we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


You post quotes without crediting the original author.   Technically that is plagiarism.   But I am sure that is just an oversight on your part.  

Now, as for the quote you posted, are you saying that the US Military should be supplied by companies without their making a profit?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> What sort of tax rates are you talking about?
> 
> 
> 
> wartime tax rates; or, the right wing is simply not serious and simply helping the rich get richer faster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are "wartime tax rates" and are we at war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how can we have alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror, if we are not at war?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore, we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Political catch-phrases do not mean we are at war.
Click to expand...

no, wartime tax rates either; conspiracy or coincidence.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> What sort of tax rates are you talking about?
> 
> 
> 
> wartime tax rates; or, the right wing is simply not serious and simply helping the rich get richer faster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are "wartime tax rates" and are we at war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how can we have alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror, if we are not at war?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore, we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You post quotes without crediting the original author.   Technically that is plagiarism.   But I am sure that is just an oversight on your part.
> 
> Now, as for the quote you posted, are you saying that the US Military should be supplied by companies without their making a profit?
Click to expand...

lol.  You asked me what wartime tax rates are.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> What sort of tax rates are you talking about?
> 
> 
> 
> wartime tax rates; or, the right wing is simply not serious and simply helping the rich get richer faster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are "wartime tax rates" and are we at war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how can we have alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror, if we are not at war?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore, we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You post quotes without crediting the original author.   Technically that is plagiarism.   But I am sure that is just an oversight on your part.
> 
> Now, as for the quote you posted, are you saying that the US Military should be supplied by companies without their making a profit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  You asked me what wartime tax rates are.
Click to expand...


I am proud of you for attempting to actually answer a question.   But found so with an uncredited quote and no other info seems limited, at best.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> wartime tax rates; or, the right wing is simply not serious and simply helping the rich get richer faster.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are "wartime tax rates" and are we at war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how can we have alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror, if we are not at war?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore, we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You post quotes without crediting the original author.   Technically that is plagiarism.   But I am sure that is just an oversight on your part.
> 
> Now, as for the quote you posted, are you saying that the US Military should be supplied by companies without their making a profit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  You asked me what wartime tax rates are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am proud of you for attempting to actually answer a question.   But found so with an uncredited quote and no other info seems limited, at best.
Click to expand...

what part of that quote do you not understand?

and, why resort to Capitalism, but for the market based metrics.  economics; what a concept.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are "wartime tax rates" and are we at war?
> 
> 
> 
> how can we have alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror, if we are not at war?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore, we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You post quotes without crediting the original author.   Technically that is plagiarism.   But I am sure that is just an oversight on your part.
> 
> Now, as for the quote you posted, are you saying that the US Military should be supplied by companies without their making a profit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  You asked me what wartime tax rates are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am proud of you for attempting to actually answer a question.   But found so with an uncredited quote and no other info seems limited, at best.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what part of that quote do you not understand?
> 
> and, why resort to Capitalism, but for the market based metrics.  economics; what a concept.
Click to expand...


I didn't say I did not understand the quote.  I chastised you for not crediting it, which amounts to plagiarism.  But confiscation of profits is not "wartime taxes"   

And we are not resorting to capitalism.  That is the basis for our economy.   But all this is getting farther and farther from the topic.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> how can we have alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror, if we are not at war?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You post quotes without crediting the original author.   Technically that is plagiarism.   But I am sure that is just an oversight on your part.
> 
> Now, as for the quote you posted, are you saying that the US Military should be supplied by companies without their making a profit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  You asked me what wartime tax rates are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am proud of you for attempting to actually answer a question.   But found so with an uncredited quote and no other info seems limited, at best.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what part of that quote do you not understand?
> 
> and, why resort to Capitalism, but for the market based metrics.  economics; what a concept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say I did not understand the quote.  I chastised you for not crediting it, which amounts to plagiarism.  But confiscation of profits is not "wartime taxes"
> 
> And we are not resorting to capitalism.  That is the basis for our economy.   But all this is getting farther and farther from the topic.
Click to expand...

Capitalism depends on market based metrics, or it is simply, socialism on a national basis as public policy, and that favors the rich and helps the rich, get richer faster.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You post quotes without crediting the original author.   Technically that is plagiarism.   But I am sure that is just an oversight on your part.
> 
> Now, as for the quote you posted, are you saying that the US Military should be supplied by companies without their making a profit?
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  You asked me what wartime tax rates are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am proud of you for attempting to actually answer a question.   But found so with an uncredited quote and no other info seems limited, at best.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what part of that quote do you not understand?
> 
> and, why resort to Capitalism, but for the market based metrics.  economics; what a concept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say I did not understand the quote.  I chastised you for not crediting it, which amounts to plagiarism.  But confiscation of profits is not "wartime taxes"
> 
> And we are not resorting to capitalism.  That is the basis for our economy.   But all this is getting farther and farther from the topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capitalism depends on market based metrics, or it is simply, socialism on a national basis as public policy, and that favors the rich and helps the rich, get richer faster.
Click to expand...


And that pertains to the topic how?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  You asked me what wartime tax rates are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am proud of you for attempting to actually answer a question.   But found so with an uncredited quote and no other info seems limited, at best.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what part of that quote do you not understand?
> 
> and, why resort to Capitalism, but for the market based metrics.  economics; what a concept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say I did not understand the quote.  I chastised you for not crediting it, which amounts to plagiarism.  But confiscation of profits is not "wartime taxes"
> 
> And we are not resorting to capitalism.  That is the basis for our economy.   But all this is getting farther and farther from the topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capitalism depends on market based metrics, or it is simply, socialism on a national basis as public policy, and that favors the rich and helps the rich, get richer faster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that pertains to the topic how?
Click to expand...

no formal act of war by Congress.  tax breaks that benefit the rich the most.  all discretionary spending on the common Offense and general Warfare, has to go first, before spending on the general welfare.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am proud of you for attempting to actually answer a question.   But found so with an uncredited quote and no other info seems limited, at best.
> 
> 
> 
> what part of that quote do you not understand?
> 
> and, why resort to Capitalism, but for the market based metrics.  economics; what a concept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say I did not understand the quote.  I chastised you for not crediting it, which amounts to plagiarism.  But confiscation of profits is not "wartime taxes"
> 
> And we are not resorting to capitalism.  That is the basis for our economy.   But all this is getting farther and farther from the topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capitalism depends on market based metrics, or it is simply, socialism on a national basis as public policy, and that favors the rich and helps the rich, get richer faster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that pertains to the topic how?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no formal act of war by Congress.  tax breaks that benefit the rich the most.  all discretionary spending on the common Offense and general Warfare, has to go first, before spending on the general welfare.
Click to expand...


Still not on the topic.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You post quotes without crediting the original author.   Technically that is plagiarism.   But I am sure that is just an oversight on your part.
> 
> Now, as for the quote you posted, are you saying that the US Military should be supplied by companies without their making a profit?
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  You asked me what wartime tax rates are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am proud of you for attempting to actually answer a question.   But found so with an uncredited quote and no other info seems limited, at best.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what part of that quote do you not understand?
> 
> and, why resort to Capitalism, but for the market based metrics.  economics; what a concept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say I did not understand the quote.  I chastised you for not crediting it, which amounts to plagiarism.  But confiscation of profits is not "wartime taxes"
> 
> And we are not resorting to capitalism.  That is the basis for our economy.   But all this is getting farther and farther from the topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capitalism depends on market based metrics, or it is simply, socialism on a national basis as public policy, and that favors the rich and helps the rich, get richer faster.
Click to expand...


Yes, capitalism disproportionately helps the rich.   But it creates more rich people than any other system.  It also allows more self-determined mobility than any other system.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> what part of that quote do you not understand?
> 
> and, why resort to Capitalism, but for the market based metrics.  economics; what a concept.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say I did not understand the quote.  I chastised you for not crediting it, which amounts to plagiarism.  But confiscation of profits is not "wartime taxes"
> 
> And we are not resorting to capitalism.  That is the basis for our economy.   But all this is getting farther and farther from the topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capitalism depends on market based metrics, or it is simply, socialism on a national basis as public policy, and that favors the rich and helps the rich, get richer faster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that pertains to the topic how?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no formal act of war by Congress.  tax breaks that benefit the rich the most.  all discretionary spending on the common Offense and general Warfare, has to go first, before spending on the general welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still not on the topic.
Click to expand...

we have a Second Amendment, and should have, no security problems.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  You asked me what wartime tax rates are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am proud of you for attempting to actually answer a question.   But found so with an uncredited quote and no other info seems limited, at best.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what part of that quote do you not understand?
> 
> and, why resort to Capitalism, but for the market based metrics.  economics; what a concept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say I did not understand the quote.  I chastised you for not crediting it, which amounts to plagiarism.  But confiscation of profits is not "wartime taxes"
> 
> And we are not resorting to capitalism.  That is the basis for our economy.   But all this is getting farther and farther from the topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capitalism depends on market based metrics, or it is simply, socialism on a national basis as public policy, and that favors the rich and helps the rich, get richer faster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, capitalism disproportionately helps the rich.   But it creates more rich people than any other system.  It also allows more self-determined mobility than any other system.
Click to expand...

We have laws, for a reason; why only complain when less fortunate illegals, fail to obey our laws?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say I did not understand the quote.  I chastised you for not crediting it, which amounts to plagiarism.  But confiscation of profits is not "wartime taxes"
> 
> And we are not resorting to capitalism.  That is the basis for our economy.   But all this is getting farther and farther from the topic.
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism depends on market based metrics, or it is simply, socialism on a national basis as public policy, and that favors the rich and helps the rich, get richer faster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that pertains to the topic how?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no formal act of war by Congress.  tax breaks that benefit the rich the most.  all discretionary spending on the common Offense and general Warfare, has to go first, before spending on the general welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still not on the topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we have a Second Amendment, and should have, no security problems.
Click to expand...


Really?   So you think a population with the right to keep and bear arms has some magical power to detect terrorist plans, forecast the actions of criminals, stand a line to protect our borders, and still work full-time, raise families, enjoy hobbies ect?

A free society will always have security problems of one sort or another.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am proud of you for attempting to actually answer a question.   But found so with an uncredited quote and no other info seems limited, at best.
> 
> 
> 
> what part of that quote do you not understand?
> 
> and, why resort to Capitalism, but for the market based metrics.  economics; what a concept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say I did not understand the quote.  I chastised you for not crediting it, which amounts to plagiarism.  But confiscation of profits is not "wartime taxes"
> 
> And we are not resorting to capitalism.  That is the basis for our economy.   But all this is getting farther and farther from the topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capitalism depends on market based metrics, or it is simply, socialism on a national basis as public policy, and that favors the rich and helps the rich, get richer faster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, capitalism disproportionately helps the rich.   But it creates more rich people than any other system.  It also allows more self-determined mobility than any other system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have laws, for a reason; why only complain when less fortunate illegals, fail to obey our laws?
Click to expand...


Once again, you post something with no bearing on the topic or what was posted.     "Only complain"?  Who is doing that?

And once those "less fortunate" cross the border, they are subject to those laws.  They are the laws of this land.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism depends on market based metrics, or it is simply, socialism on a national basis as public policy, and that favors the rich and helps the rich, get richer faster.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that pertains to the topic how?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no formal act of war by Congress.  tax breaks that benefit the rich the most.  all discretionary spending on the common Offense and general Warfare, has to go first, before spending on the general welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still not on the topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we have a Second Amendment, and should have, no security problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?   So you think a population with the right to keep and bear arms has some magical power to detect terrorist plans, forecast the actions of criminals, stand a line to protect our borders, and still work full-time, raise families, enjoy hobbies ect?
> 
> A free society will always have security problems of one sort or another.
Click to expand...

There is no provision for Excuses in our Second Amendment, only results.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> what part of that quote do you not understand?
> 
> and, why resort to Capitalism, but for the market based metrics.  economics; what a concept.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say I did not understand the quote.  I chastised you for not crediting it, which amounts to plagiarism.  But confiscation of profits is not "wartime taxes"
> 
> And we are not resorting to capitalism.  That is the basis for our economy.   But all this is getting farther and farther from the topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capitalism depends on market based metrics, or it is simply, socialism on a national basis as public policy, and that favors the rich and helps the rich, get richer faster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, capitalism disproportionately helps the rich.   But it creates more rich people than any other system.  It also allows more self-determined mobility than any other system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have laws, for a reason; why only complain when less fortunate illegals, fail to obey our laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, you post something with no bearing on the topic or what was posted.     "Only complain"?  Who is doing that?
> 
> And once those "less fortunate" cross the border, they are subject to those laws.  They are the laws of this land.
Click to expand...

10USC246 is federal law, right wingers.  Is your socialism on a national basis, worth it?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say I did not understand the quote.  I chastised you for not crediting it, which amounts to plagiarism.  But confiscation of profits is not "wartime taxes"
> 
> And we are not resorting to capitalism.  That is the basis for our economy.   But all this is getting farther and farther from the topic.
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism depends on market based metrics, or it is simply, socialism on a national basis as public policy, and that favors the rich and helps the rich, get richer faster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, capitalism disproportionately helps the rich.   But it creates more rich people than any other system.  It also allows more self-determined mobility than any other system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have laws, for a reason; why only complain when less fortunate illegals, fail to obey our laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, you post something with no bearing on the topic or what was posted.     "Only complain"?  Who is doing that?
> 
> And once those "less fortunate" cross the border, they are subject to those laws.  They are the laws of this land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 10USC246 is federal law, right wingers.  Is your socialism on a national basis, worth it?
Click to expand...


There are several things about 10 USC 246 that are unconstitutional.   But that is for another topic.

For someone who cries about capitalism, your calling military service (organized or unorganized militia) "socialism is funny.   After all, you were the one suggesting the militia be used for construction of infrastructure.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism depends on market based metrics, or it is simply, socialism on a national basis as public policy, and that favors the rich and helps the rich, get richer faster.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, capitalism disproportionately helps the rich.   But it creates more rich people than any other system.  It also allows more self-determined mobility than any other system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have laws, for a reason; why only complain when less fortunate illegals, fail to obey our laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, you post something with no bearing on the topic or what was posted.     "Only complain"?  Who is doing that?
> 
> And once those "less fortunate" cross the border, they are subject to those laws.  They are the laws of this land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 10USC246 is federal law, right wingers.  Is your socialism on a national basis, worth it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are several things about 10 USC 246 that are unconstitutional.   But that is for another topic.
> 
> For someone who cries about capitalism, your calling military service (organized or unorganized militia) "socialism is funny.   After all, you were the one suggesting the militia be used for construction of infrastructure.
Click to expand...

What is unconstitutional about 10USC246?   Our Second Amendment is clear about the socialism required for the security of a free State.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that pertains to the topic how?
> 
> 
> 
> no formal act of war by Congress.  tax breaks that benefit the rich the most.  all discretionary spending on the common Offense and general Warfare, has to go first, before spending on the general welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still not on the topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we have a Second Amendment, and should have, no security problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?   So you think a population with the right to keep and bear arms has some magical power to detect terrorist plans, forecast the actions of criminals, stand a line to protect our borders, and still work full-time, raise families, enjoy hobbies ect?
> 
> A free society will always have security problems of one sort or another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no provision for Excuses in our Second Amendment, only results.
Click to expand...


Who is making excuses?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> no formal act of war by Congress.  tax breaks that benefit the rich the most.  all discretionary spending on the common Offense and general Warfare, has to go first, before spending on the general welfare.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still not on the topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we have a Second Amendment, and should have, no security problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?   So you think a population with the right to keep and bear arms has some magical power to detect terrorist plans, forecast the actions of criminals, stand a line to protect our borders, and still work full-time, raise families, enjoy hobbies ect?
> 
> A free society will always have security problems of one sort or another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no provision for Excuses in our Second Amendment, only results.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is making excuses?
Click to expand...

You are.  Our Second Amendment is written the way it is, Because the People are the Militia.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still not on the topic.
> 
> 
> 
> we have a Second Amendment, and should have, no security problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?   So you think a population with the right to keep and bear arms has some magical power to detect terrorist plans, forecast the actions of criminals, stand a line to protect our borders, and still work full-time, raise families, enjoy hobbies ect?
> 
> A free society will always have security problems of one sort or another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no provision for Excuses in our Second Amendment, only results.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is making excuses?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are.  Our Second Amendment is written the way it is, Because the People are the Militia.
Click to expand...


Yes, the people are the militia.  The 2nd gives the people the right to keep & bear arms.   No excuses.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> we have a Second Amendment, and should have, no security problems.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?   So you think a population with the right to keep and bear arms has some magical power to detect terrorist plans, forecast the actions of criminals, stand a line to protect our borders, and still work full-time, raise families, enjoy hobbies ect?
> 
> A free society will always have security problems of one sort or another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no provision for Excuses in our Second Amendment, only results.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is making excuses?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are.  Our Second Amendment is written the way it is, Because the People are the Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the people are the militia.  The 2nd gives the people the right to keep & bear arms.   No excuses.
Click to expand...

It says, well regulated militia may not be Infringed, regardless of the right to keep and bear.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still not on the topic.
> 
> 
> 
> we have a Second Amendment, and should have, no security problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?   So you think a population with the right to keep and bear arms has some magical power to detect terrorist plans, forecast the actions of criminals, stand a line to protect our borders, and still work full-time, raise families, enjoy hobbies ect?
> 
> A free society will always have security problems of one sort or another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no provision for Excuses in our Second Amendment, only results.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is making excuses?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are.  Our Second Amendment is written the way it is, Because the People are the Militia.
Click to expand...


We are not making excuses.   We are disagreeing with your interpretation of the 2nd amendment as a collective right.   It is an individual right.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?   So you think a population with the right to keep and bear arms has some magical power to detect terrorist plans, forecast the actions of criminals, stand a line to protect our borders, and still work full-time, raise families, enjoy hobbies ect?
> 
> A free society will always have security problems of one sort or another.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no provision for Excuses in our Second Amendment, only results.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is making excuses?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are.  Our Second Amendment is written the way it is, Because the People are the Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the people are the militia.  The 2nd gives the people the right to keep & bear arms.   No excuses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It says, well regulated militia may not be Infringed, regardless of the right to keep and bear.
Click to expand...


No, it says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms...".    You choose to ignore the punctuation.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> we have a Second Amendment, and should have, no security problems.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?   So you think a population with the right to keep and bear arms has some magical power to detect terrorist plans, forecast the actions of criminals, stand a line to protect our borders, and still work full-time, raise families, enjoy hobbies ect?
> 
> A free society will always have security problems of one sort or another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no provision for Excuses in our Second Amendment, only results.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is making excuses?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are.  Our Second Amendment is written the way it is, Because the People are the Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are not making excuses.   We are disagreeing with your interpretation of the 2nd amendment as a collective right.   It is an individual right.
Click to expand...

The People are the Militia.  What is not Collective, about that?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no provision for Excuses in our Second Amendment, only results.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is making excuses?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are.  Our Second Amendment is written the way it is, Because the People are the Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the people are the militia.  The 2nd gives the people the right to keep & bear arms.   No excuses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It says, well regulated militia may not be Infringed, regardless of the right to keep and bear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms...".    You choose to ignore the punctuation.
Click to expand...

The punctuation Changes No Thing, when the People are the Militia.  In fact, you could relegate all punctuation to the right wing, and leave them in reserve, and still get the job done.

There is No Thing ambiguous about our supreme law of the land; that is how Good of a job, our Founding Fathers did at the convention with our federal Constitution.  

the right wing, simply Enjoys slacking.


----------



## there4eyeM

"People" can infer a singular, as in "people sometime sit in that chair". Obviously, one person sits in a chair at a time.
Saying "the people" is collective in sense, as in "the people want change".
"The right of persons to bear arms" would definitely be individuals. "The right of the people" would be collective.
Personally, I don't understand exactly what your problems are in this thread and have no opinion; this is only contributed as an observation on vocabulary and semantics. 
P.S.; wouldn't the right to bear arms limit arms to those that could be born, thus excluding cannons and such?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?   So you think a population with the right to keep and bear arms has some magical power to detect terrorist plans, forecast the actions of criminals, stand a line to protect our borders, and still work full-time, raise families, enjoy hobbies ect?
> 
> A free society will always have security problems of one sort or another.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no provision for Excuses in our Second Amendment, only results.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is making excuses?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are.  Our Second Amendment is written the way it is, Because the People are the Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are not making excuses.   We are disagreeing with your interpretation of the 2nd amendment as a collective right.   It is an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the Militia.  What is not Collective, about that?
Click to expand...


That the PEOPLE have the right to keep and bear arms, not the militia


----------



## there4eyeM

It is certain the writers of the Constitution wanted the population in general to be able to be armed. It is not at all clear they wanted to decide in advance that all and everyone could tramp around with any type of arm available. There is ample room for discernment about quantity and quality as well.


----------



## danielpalos

there4eyeM said:


> "People" can infer a singular, as in "people sometime sit in that chair". Obviously, one person sits in a chair at a time.
> Saying "the people" is collective in sense, as in "the people want change".
> "The right of persons to bear arms" would definitely be individuals. "The right of the people" would be collective.
> Personally, I don't understand exactly what your problems are in this thread and have no opinion; this is only contributed as an observation on vocabulary and semantics.
> P.S.; wouldn't the right to bear arms limit arms to those that could be born, thus excluding cannons and such?


No, it can't.  The People is plural, not singular, especially if we have to quibble.


----------



## Pop23

there4eyeM said:


> It is certain the writers of the Constitution wanted the population in general to be able to be armed. It is not at all clear they wanted to decide in advance that all and everyone could tramp around with any type of arm available. There is ample room for discernment about quantity and quality as well.



Can't disagree totally with this. But "the people" obviously relates to "individuals" or it would appear much further down in the amendments and certainly not in the section known as "The Bill of Rights"


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no provision for Excuses in our Second Amendment, only results.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is making excuses?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are.  Our Second Amendment is written the way it is, Because the People are the Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are not making excuses.   We are disagreeing with your interpretation of the 2nd amendment as a collective right.   It is an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the Militia.  What is not Collective, about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That the PEOPLE have the right to keep and bear arms, not the militia
Click to expand...

The People are the Militia.  Only well regulated militia of the whole People, may not be Infringed for State security purposes.


----------



## danielpalos

there4eyeM said:


> It is certain the writers of the Constitution wanted the population in general to be able to be armed. It is not at all clear they wanted to decide in advance that all and everyone could tramp around with any type of arm available. There is ample room for discernment about quantity and quality as well.


Our Second Amendment is quite clear as to the security needs of any of our free States; it is most definitely, not, the unorganized militia.


----------



## danielpalos

Pop23 said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is certain the writers of the Constitution wanted the population in general to be able to be armed. It is not at all clear they wanted to decide in advance that all and everyone could tramp around with any type of arm available. There is ample room for discernment about quantity and quality as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't disagree totally with this. But "the people" obviously relates to "individuals" or it would appear much further down in the amendments and certainly not in the section known as "The Bill of Rights"
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't, or it would say that.


----------



## Pop23

danielpalos said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is certain the writers of the Constitution wanted the population in general to be able to be armed. It is not at all clear they wanted to decide in advance that all and everyone could tramp around with any type of arm available. There is ample room for discernment about quantity and quality as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't disagree totally with this. But "the people" obviously relates to "individuals" or it would appear much further down in the amendments and certainly not in the section known as "The Bill of Rights"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't, or it would say that.
Click to expand...


Yes it does, and it says exactly that.


----------



## danielpalos

Pop23 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is certain the writers of the Constitution wanted the population in general to be able to be armed. It is not at all clear they wanted to decide in advance that all and everyone could tramp around with any type of arm available. There is ample room for discernment about quantity and quality as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't disagree totally with this. But "the people" obviously relates to "individuals" or it would appear much further down in the amendments and certainly not in the section known as "The Bill of Rights"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't, or it would say that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it does, and it says exactly that.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't.  The People and the Militia are both plural, not individual; especially if we are quibbling.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> "People" can infer a singular, as in "people sometime sit in that chair". Obviously, one person sits in a chair at a time.
> Saying "the people" is collective in sense, as in "the people want change".
> "The right of persons to bear arms" would definitely be individuals. "The right of the people" would be collective.
> Personally, I don't understand exactly what your problems are in this thread and have no opinion; this is only contributed as an observation on vocabulary and semantics.
> P.S.; wouldn't the right to bear arms limit arms to those that could be born, thus excluding cannons and such?
> 
> 
> 
> No, it can't.  The People is plural, not singular, especially if we have to quibble.
Click to expand...


Because, once again, that right is guaranteed for more than one person.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> "People" can infer a singular, as in "people sometime sit in that chair". Obviously, one person sits in a chair at a time.
> Saying "the people" is collective in sense, as in "the people want change".
> "The right of persons to bear arms" would definitely be individuals. "The right of the people" would be collective.
> Personally, I don't understand exactly what your problems are in this thread and have no opinion; this is only contributed as an observation on vocabulary and semantics.
> P.S.; wouldn't the right to bear arms limit arms to those that could be born, thus excluding cannons and such?
> 
> 
> 
> No, it can't.  The People is plural, not singular, especially if we have to quibble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because, once again, that right is guaranteed for more than one person.
Click to expand...

The People.  Civil rights, do that.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> "People" can infer a singular, as in "people sometime sit in that chair". Obviously, one person sits in a chair at a time.
> Saying "the people" is collective in sense, as in "the people want change".
> "The right of persons to bear arms" would definitely be individuals. "The right of the people" would be collective.
> Personally, I don't understand exactly what your problems are in this thread and have no opinion; this is only contributed as an observation on vocabulary and semantics.
> P.S.; wouldn't the right to bear arms limit arms to those that could be born, thus excluding cannons and such?
> 
> 
> 
> No, it can't.  The People is plural, not singular, especially if we have to quibble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because, once again, that right is guaranteed for more than one person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People.  Civil rights, do that.
Click to expand...


And you maintain that the right to keep and bear arms, as guaranteed by the 2nd amendment, is not a civil right?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> "People" can infer a singular, as in "people sometime sit in that chair". Obviously, one person sits in a chair at a time.
> Saying "the people" is collective in sense, as in "the people want change".
> "The right of persons to bear arms" would definitely be individuals. "The right of the people" would be collective.
> Personally, I don't understand exactly what your problems are in this thread and have no opinion; this is only contributed as an observation on vocabulary and semantics.
> P.S.; wouldn't the right to bear arms limit arms to those that could be born, thus excluding cannons and such?
> 
> 
> 
> No, it can't.  The People is plural, not singular, especially if we have to quibble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because, once again, that right is guaranteed for more than one person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People.  Civil rights, do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you maintain that the right to keep and bear arms, as guaranteed by the 2nd amendment, is not a civil right?
Click to expand...

changing your story again, story teller?  The People are the Militia.  Well regulated militia of the People may not be Infringed, when it is about the security of a free State.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good thing we have a Second Amendment as a Prohibition on Government propaganda and rhetoric.
> 
> the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be Infringed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to take up arms against the gov't over propaganda and rhetoric, go right ahead.   Prison is going to be rough.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Just because a minority of citizens incorrectly and subjectively perceive the government to have become ‘tyrannical’ doesn’t warrant ‘taking up arms’ against a government lawfully and Constitutionally installed by the people reflecting the will of the people – there’s nothing in the history, text, or case law of the Second Amendment which authorizes such nonsense.


----------



## danielpalos

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good thing we have a Second Amendment as a Prohibition on Government propaganda and rhetoric.
> 
> the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be Infringed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to take up arms against the gov't over propaganda and rhetoric, go right ahead.   Prison is going to be rough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> Just because a minority of citizens incorrectly and subjectively perceive the government to have become ‘tyrannical’ doesn’t warrant ‘taking up arms’ against a government lawfully and Constitutionally installed by the people reflecting the will of the people – there’s nothing in the history, text, or case law of the Second Amendment which authorizes such nonsense.
Click to expand...

We have a First Amendment.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Wry Catcher said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The rights enumerated in the Constitution are unalienable meaning they cannot be divorced from the individual.  The governemnt has neither the power not the authority to grant these unalienable rights as they are inherent in the individual from the moment of birth.
> 
> This idea in an integral part of the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> There are no individual rights in our Second Amendment.  Unalienable rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.
> 
> What the right wing wants to do, is infringe upon the doctrine of separation of powers, without just Cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every right is an individual right.
> 
> Every right enumerated in the Constitution is not granted by the government therefore cannot be take away by the government
> 
> And the Constitution also states that the rights listed in the Bill of rights are not the only rights an individual has
> 
> The authors of the Bill of Rights believed the 10 rights they started with to be some of the most important therefore in need of the most protection
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, they are aren't.  They are civil rights, expressly declared.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every single right belongs to the individual
> Every right that belongs to the individual is his from birth
> 
> The government does not have the authority to grant or revoke these rights.
> 
> These tenets are the bedrock of the Constitution.
> 
> Bill of Rights - Bill of Rights Institute
> 
> *The first 10 amendments to the Constitution make up the Bill of Rights. James Madison wrote the amendments, which list specific prohibitions on governmental power, in response to calls from several states for greater constitutional protection for individual liberties.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, and yet these rights you claim all have exceptions under the law.
Click to expand...

Correct.

Our rights are inalienable, they can be neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man.

Although inalienable, they are neither ‘unlimited’ nor ‘absolute’ – they are subject to regulation and restrictions by government, consistent with Constitutional case law, including the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> "People" can infer a singular, as in "people sometime sit in that chair". Obviously, one person sits in a chair at a time.
> Saying "the people" is collective in sense, as in "the people want change".
> "The right of persons to bear arms" would definitely be individuals. "The right of the people" would be collective.
> Personally, I don't understand exactly what your problems are in this thread and have no opinion; this is only contributed as an observation on vocabulary and semantics.
> P.S.; wouldn't the right to bear arms limit arms to those that could be born, thus excluding cannons and such?
> 
> 
> 
> No, it can't.  The People is plural, not singular, especially if we have to quibble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because, once again, that right is guaranteed for more than one person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People.  Civil rights, do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you maintain that the right to keep and bear arms, as guaranteed by the 2nd amendment, is not a civil right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> changing your story again, story teller?  The People are the Militia.  Well regulated militia of the People may not be Infringed, when it is about the security of a free State.
Click to expand...


I have not changed my story.   And the militia is made up of armed citizen soldiers.   "The right of the people"   not  "The right of the militia"


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it can't.  The People is plural, not singular, especially if we have to quibble.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because, once again, that right is guaranteed for more than one person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People.  Civil rights, do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you maintain that the right to keep and bear arms, as guaranteed by the 2nd amendment, is not a civil right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> changing your story again, story teller?  The People are the Militia.  Well regulated militia of the People may not be Infringed, when it is about the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have not changed my story.   And the militia is made up of armed citizen soldiers.   "The right of the people"   not  "The right of the militia"
Click to expand...

How did that work for the South?  Only well regulated militias of the United States, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.


----------



## Pop23

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because, once again, that right is guaranteed for more than one person.
> 
> 
> 
> The People.  Civil rights, do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you maintain that the right to keep and bear arms, as guaranteed by the 2nd amendment, is not a civil right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> changing your story again, story teller?  The People are the Militia.  Well regulated militia of the People may not be Infringed, when it is about the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have not changed my story.   And the militia is made up of armed citizen soldiers.   "The right of the people"   not  "The right of the militia"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How did that work for the South?  Only well regulated militias of the United States, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
Click to expand...


"...the right of the people...shall not be infringed."


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because, once again, that right is guaranteed for more than one person.
> 
> 
> 
> The People.  Civil rights, do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you maintain that the right to keep and bear arms, as guaranteed by the 2nd amendment, is not a civil right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> changing your story again, story teller?  The People are the Militia.  Well regulated militia of the People may not be Infringed, when it is about the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have not changed my story.   And the militia is made up of armed citizen soldiers.   "The right of the people"   not  "The right of the militia"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How did that work for the South?  Only well regulated militias of the United States, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
Click to expand...


The Romans. The South.  YOu bounce around like a rubber ball.   

How did it work out?  It worked out surprisingly well.  It was expected to be so one sided that society's finest came out with picnics to watch the rebels get their comeuppance.  One of the best land armies in the world was expected to run through the Confederate Army like a hot knife through butter.  The southerners were, by military standards, poorly equipped.   The first new Union recruits were only conscripted for 90 days because the war was expected to be very short.

So what does all that have to do with the topic?


----------



## danielpalos

Pop23 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The People.  Civil rights, do that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you maintain that the right to keep and bear arms, as guaranteed by the 2nd amendment, is not a civil right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> changing your story again, story teller?  The People are the Militia.  Well regulated militia of the People may not be Infringed, when it is about the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have not changed my story.   And the militia is made up of armed citizen soldiers.   "The right of the people"   not  "The right of the militia"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How did that work for the South?  Only well regulated militias of the United States, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "...the right of the people...shall not be infringed."
Click to expand...

only in right wing fantasy.   The entire South, got _Infringed_ by well regulated militias of the United States.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The People.  Civil rights, do that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you maintain that the right to keep and bear arms, as guaranteed by the 2nd amendment, is not a civil right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> changing your story again, story teller?  The People are the Militia.  Well regulated militia of the People may not be Infringed, when it is about the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have not changed my story.   And the militia is made up of armed citizen soldiers.   "The right of the people"   not  "The right of the militia"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How did that work for the South?  Only well regulated militias of the United States, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Romans. The South.  YOu bounce around like a rubber ball.
> 
> How did it work out?  It worked out surprisingly well.  It was expected to be so one sided that society's finest came out with picnics to watch the rebels get their comeuppance.  One of the best land armies in the world was expected to run through the Confederate Army like a hot knife through butter.  The southerners were, by military standards, poorly equipped.   The first new Union recruits were only conscripted for 90 days because the war was expected to be very short.
> 
> So what does all that have to do with the topic?
Click to expand...

nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.  telling stories, is what y'all are best at.


----------



## Pop23

danielpalos said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you maintain that the right to keep and bear arms, as guaranteed by the 2nd amendment, is not a civil right?
> 
> 
> 
> changing your story again, story teller?  The People are the Militia.  Well regulated militia of the People may not be Infringed, when it is about the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have not changed my story.   And the militia is made up of armed citizen soldiers.   "The right of the people"   not  "The right of the militia"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How did that work for the South?  Only well regulated militias of the United States, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "...the right of the people...shall not be infringed."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only in right wing fantasy.   The entire South, got _Infringed_ by well regulated militias of the United States.
Click to expand...


Dude, you wrote the answer yourself. You don't even believe your own shit. Why would we?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you maintain that the right to keep and bear arms, as guaranteed by the 2nd amendment, is not a civil right?
> 
> 
> 
> changing your story again, story teller?  The People are the Militia.  Well regulated militia of the People may not be Infringed, when it is about the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have not changed my story.   And the militia is made up of armed citizen soldiers.   "The right of the people"   not  "The right of the militia"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How did that work for the South?  Only well regulated militias of the United States, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "...the right of the people...shall not be infringed."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only in right wing fantasy.   The entire South, got _Infringed_ by well regulated militias of the United States.
Click to expand...


Yes they did.   But then, they were a defeated foreign nation.  They regained their 2nd amendment individual rights later.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you maintain that the right to keep and bear arms, as guaranteed by the 2nd amendment, is not a civil right?
> 
> 
> 
> changing your story again, story teller?  The People are the Militia.  Well regulated militia of the People may not be Infringed, when it is about the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have not changed my story.   And the militia is made up of armed citizen soldiers.   "The right of the people"   not  "The right of the militia"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How did that work for the South?  Only well regulated militias of the United States, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Romans. The South.  YOu bounce around like a rubber ball.
> 
> How did it work out?  It worked out surprisingly well.  It was expected to be so one sided that society's finest came out with picnics to watch the rebels get their comeuppance.  One of the best land armies in the world was expected to run through the Confederate Army like a hot knife through butter.  The southerners were, by military standards, poorly equipped.   The first new Union recruits were only conscripted for 90 days because the war was expected to be very short.
> 
> So what does all that have to do with the topic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.  telling stories, is what y'all are best at.
Click to expand...


For those of you not familiar with Daniel's debate style, the post above translates as "I do not have an actual argument so I will just go with an insult"


----------



## there4eyeM

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> changing your story again, story teller?  The People are the Militia.  Well regulated militia of the People may not be Infringed, when it is about the security of a free State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have not changed my story.   And the militia is made up of armed citizen soldiers.   "The right of the people"   not  "The right of the militia"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How did that work for the South?  Only well regulated militias of the United States, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "...the right of the people...shall not be infringed."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only in right wing fantasy.   The entire South, got _Infringed_ by well regulated militias of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes they did.   But then, they were a defeated foreign nation.  They regained their 2nd amendment individual rights later.
Click to expand...

Respectfully, the states in rebellion were not a foreign nation. The attempt to unilaterally separate from their membership in the Perpetual Union was put down by the rest of the nation there were part of.


----------



## WinterBorn

there4eyeM said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have not changed my story.   And the militia is made up of armed citizen soldiers.   "The right of the people"   not  "The right of the militia"
> 
> 
> 
> How did that work for the South?  Only well regulated militias of the United States, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "...the right of the people...shall not be infringed."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only in right wing fantasy.   The entire South, got _Infringed_ by well regulated militias of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes they did.   But then, they were a defeated foreign nation.  They regained their 2nd amendment individual rights later.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Respectfully, the states in rebellion were not a foreign nation. The attempt to unilaterally separate from their membership in the Perpetual Union was put down by the rest of the nation there were part of.
Click to expand...


Different president, different capital, different currency, different military, and a different constitution.    They considered themselves a foreign nation.


----------



## there4eyeM

WinterBorn said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did that work for the South?  Only well regulated militias of the United States, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "...the right of the people...shall not be infringed."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only in right wing fantasy.   The entire South, got _Infringed_ by well regulated militias of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes they did.   But then, they were a defeated foreign nation.  They regained their 2nd amendment individual rights later.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Respectfully, the states in rebellion were not a foreign nation. The attempt to unilaterally separate from their membership in the Perpetual Union was put down by the rest of the nation there were part of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Different president, different capital, different currency, different military, and a different constitution.    They considered themselves a foreign nation.
Click to expand...

One could substitute 'rival' for "different". They may have had an identity problem (similar to those who cannot accept how nature formed them), but the part of the United States that attempted to secede was proven wrong.


----------



## Wry Catcher

WinterBorn said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did that work for the South?  Only well regulated militias of the United States, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "...the right of the people...shall not be infringed."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only in right wing fantasy.   The entire South, got _Infringed_ by well regulated militias of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes they did.   But then, they were a defeated foreign nation.  They regained their 2nd amendment individual rights later.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Respectfully, the states in rebellion were not a foreign nation. The attempt to unilaterally separate from their membership in the Perpetual Union was put down by the rest of the nation there were part of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Different president, different capital, different currency, different military, and a different constitution.    They considered themselves a foreign nation.
Click to expand...


Sure, and you consider yourself a patriot.  Self awareness seems to be a challenge.


----------



## danielpalos

Pop23 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> changing your story again, story teller?  The People are the Militia.  Well regulated militia of the People may not be Infringed, when it is about the security of a free State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have not changed my story.   And the militia is made up of armed citizen soldiers.   "The right of the people"   not  "The right of the militia"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How did that work for the South?  Only well regulated militias of the United States, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "...the right of the people...shall not be infringed."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only in right wing fantasy.   The entire South, got _Infringed_ by well regulated militias of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, you wrote the answer yourself. You don't even believe your own shit. Why would we?
Click to expand...

You can't re-write history.  Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed,regardless of all of the other ones.  Our Civil War, proved it and fixed it as precedent.


----------



## Pop23

danielpalos said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have not changed my story.   And the militia is made up of armed citizen soldiers.   "The right of the people"   not  "The right of the militia"
> 
> 
> 
> How did that work for the South?  Only well regulated militias of the United States, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "...the right of the people...shall not be infringed."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only in right wing fantasy.   The entire South, got _Infringed_ by well regulated militias of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, you wrote the answer yourself. You don't even believe your own shit. Why would we?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't re-write history.  Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed,regardless of all of the other ones.  Our Civil War, proved it and fixed it as precedent.
Click to expand...


Shoooo you mangy dog, we've gone over this, like two dozen times with you. You lost every time.


----------



## danielpalos

Pop23 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did that work for the South?  Only well regulated militias of the United States, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "...the right of the people...shall not be infringed."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only in right wing fantasy.   The entire South, got _Infringed_ by well regulated militias of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, you wrote the answer yourself. You don't even believe your own shit. Why would we?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't re-write history.  Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed,regardless of all of the other ones.  Our Civil War, proved it and fixed it as precedent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shoooo you mangy dog, we've gone over this, like two dozen times with you. You lost every time.
Click to expand...

only in right wing, fallacy induced fantasy.


----------



## Pop23

danielpalos said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "...the right of the people...shall not be infringed."
> 
> 
> 
> only in right wing fantasy.   The entire South, got _Infringed_ by well regulated militias of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, you wrote the answer yourself. You don't even believe your own shit. Why would we?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't re-write history.  Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed,regardless of all of the other ones.  Our Civil War, proved it and fixed it as precedent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shoooo you mangy dog, we've gone over this, like two dozen times with you. You lost every time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only in right wing, fallacy induced fantasy.
Click to expand...


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have not changed my story.   And the militia is made up of armed citizen soldiers.   "The right of the people"   not  "The right of the militia"
> 
> 
> 
> How did that work for the South?  Only well regulated militias of the United States, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "...the right of the people...shall not be infringed."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only in right wing fantasy.   The entire South, got _Infringed_ by well regulated militias of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, you wrote the answer yourself. You don't even believe your own shit. Why would we?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't re-write history.  Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed,regardless of all of the other ones.  Our Civil War, proved it and fixed it as precedent.
Click to expand...


Exactly HOW did the Civil War prove anything to do with the 2nd amendment?   Come on, actually answer a question for a change.

FYI, when you post something you pretend to be a fact, and do not provide any clarification, back-up or evidence, no one gives your claim any credence.  So what you say about right wingers is actually true of you, if you refuse to answer questions.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did that work for the South?  Only well regulated militias of the United States, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "...the right of the people...shall not be infringed."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only in right wing fantasy.   The entire South, got _Infringed_ by well regulated militias of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, you wrote the answer yourself. You don't even believe your own shit. Why would we?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't re-write history.  Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed,regardless of all of the other ones.  Our Civil War, proved it and fixed it as precedent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly HOW did the Civil War prove anything to do with the 2nd amendment?   Come on, actually answer a question for a change.
> 
> FYI, when you post something you pretend to be a fact, and do not provide any clarification, back-up or evidence, no one gives your claim any credence.  So what you say about right wingers is actually true of you, if you refuse to answer questions.
Click to expand...

 The entire South, got Infringed by well regulated militias of the United States.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "...the right of the people...shall not be infringed."
> 
> 
> 
> only in right wing fantasy.   The entire South, got _Infringed_ by well regulated militias of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, you wrote the answer yourself. You don't even believe your own shit. Why would we?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't re-write history.  Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed,regardless of all of the other ones.  Our Civil War, proved it and fixed it as precedent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly HOW did the Civil War prove anything to do with the 2nd amendment?   Come on, actually answer a question for a change.
> 
> FYI, when you post something you pretend to be a fact, and do not provide any clarification, back-up or evidence, no one gives your claim any credence.  So what you say about right wingers is actually true of you, if you refuse to answer questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The entire South, got Infringed by well regulated militias of the United States.
Click to expand...


For the purpose of this discussion, that is meaningless.   No one, in all these pages of discussion has said militias could not fight.  And the main reason the Union won was the vastly superior resources, not the militia.

The only thing it proves is the point that people have been trying to make to you.  The men who signed up and went to fight Johnny Reb were not organized militia until they were called up.  They did not drill before they were needed.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> only in right wing fantasy.   The entire South, got _Infringed_ by well regulated militias of the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, you wrote the answer yourself. You don't even believe your own shit. Why would we?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't re-write history.  Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed,regardless of all of the other ones.  Our Civil War, proved it and fixed it as precedent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly HOW did the Civil War prove anything to do with the 2nd amendment?   Come on, actually answer a question for a change.
> 
> FYI, when you post something you pretend to be a fact, and do not provide any clarification, back-up or evidence, no one gives your claim any credence.  So what you say about right wingers is actually true of you, if you refuse to answer questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The entire South, got Infringed by well regulated militias of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the purpose of this discussion, that is meaningless.   No one, in all these pages of discussion has said militias could not fight.  And the main reason the Union won was the vastly superior resources, not the militia.
> 
> The only thing it proves is the point that people have been trying to make to you.  The men who signed up and went to fight Johnny Reb were not organized militia until they were called up.  They did not drill before they were needed.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't.  Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; it Had to happen that way.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, you wrote the answer yourself. You don't even believe your own shit. Why would we?
> 
> 
> 
> You can't re-write history.  Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed,regardless of all of the other ones.  Our Civil War, proved it and fixed it as precedent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly HOW did the Civil War prove anything to do with the 2nd amendment?   Come on, actually answer a question for a change.
> 
> FYI, when you post something you pretend to be a fact, and do not provide any clarification, back-up or evidence, no one gives your claim any credence.  So what you say about right wingers is actually true of you, if you refuse to answer questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The entire South, got Infringed by well regulated militias of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the purpose of this discussion, that is meaningless.   No one, in all these pages of discussion has said militias could not fight.  And the main reason the Union won was the vastly superior resources, not the militia.
> 
> The only thing it proves is the point that people have been trying to make to you.  The men who signed up and went to fight Johnny Reb were not organized militia until they were called up.  They did not drill before they were needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it isn't.  Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; it Had to happen that way.
Click to expand...


Yes, the militia is well regulated.   But the individual was not regulated until he joined the militia.   Citizen soldiers.  And the 2nd amendment does not say anything about the rights of the militia.  It addresses the right of the people.   That gives the individual the right to keep and bear arms.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't re-write history.  Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed,regardless of all of the other ones.  Our Civil War, proved it and fixed it as precedent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly HOW did the Civil War prove anything to do with the 2nd amendment?   Come on, actually answer a question for a change.
> 
> FYI, when you post something you pretend to be a fact, and do not provide any clarification, back-up or evidence, no one gives your claim any credence.  So what you say about right wingers is actually true of you, if you refuse to answer questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The entire South, got Infringed by well regulated militias of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the purpose of this discussion, that is meaningless.   No one, in all these pages of discussion has said militias could not fight.  And the main reason the Union won was the vastly superior resources, not the militia.
> 
> The only thing it proves is the point that people have been trying to make to you.  The men who signed up and went to fight Johnny Reb were not organized militia until they were called up.  They did not drill before they were needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it isn't.  Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; it Had to happen that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the militia is well regulated.   But the individual was not regulated until he joined the militia.   Citizen soldiers.  And the 2nd amendment does not say anything about the rights of the militia.  It addresses the right of the people.   That gives the individual the right to keep and bear arms.
Click to expand...

The People are the Militia; You are either, well regulated or unorganized.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly HOW did the Civil War prove anything to do with the 2nd amendment?   Come on, actually answer a question for a change.
> 
> FYI, when you post something you pretend to be a fact, and do not provide any clarification, back-up or evidence, no one gives your claim any credence.  So what you say about right wingers is actually true of you, if you refuse to answer questions.
> 
> 
> 
> The entire South, got Infringed by well regulated militias of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the purpose of this discussion, that is meaningless.   No one, in all these pages of discussion has said militias could not fight.  And the main reason the Union won was the vastly superior resources, not the militia.
> 
> The only thing it proves is the point that people have been trying to make to you.  The men who signed up and went to fight Johnny Reb were not organized militia until they were called up.  They did not drill before they were needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it isn't.  Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; it Had to happen that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the militia is well regulated.   But the individual was not regulated until he joined the militia.   Citizen soldiers.  And the 2nd amendment does not say anything about the rights of the militia.  It addresses the right of the people.   That gives the individual the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the Militia; You are either, well regulated or unorganized.
Click to expand...


Let me help you understand.   Let's make a hypothetical Civil War example.   
Joe Smith, who fought with the Illinois 63rd Militia, brought his personal rifle when he joined the militia.  The Illinois 63rd Militia was an organized militia.  Joe was a part of an organized militia after he joined the Illinois 63rd.   But he owned his gun and the 2nd amendment guarantees his right to keep & bear arms.


----------



## Pop23

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The entire South, got Infringed by well regulated militias of the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For the purpose of this discussion, that is meaningless.   No one, in all these pages of discussion has said militias could not fight.  And the main reason the Union won was the vastly superior resources, not the militia.
> 
> The only thing it proves is the point that people have been trying to make to you.  The men who signed up and went to fight Johnny Reb were not organized militia until they were called up.  They did not drill before they were needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it isn't.  Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; it Had to happen that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the militia is well regulated.   But the individual was not regulated until he joined the militia.   Citizen soldiers.  And the 2nd amendment does not say anything about the rights of the militia.  It addresses the right of the people.   That gives the individual the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the Militia; You are either, well regulated or unorganized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me help you understand.   Let's make a hypothetical Civil War example.
> Joe Smith, who fought with the Illinois 63rd Militia, brought his personal rifle when he joined the militia.  The Illinois 63rd Militia was an organized militia.  Joe was a part of an organized militia after he joined the Illinois 63rd.   But he owned his gun and the 2nd amendment guarantees his right to keep & bear arms.
Click to expand...


And Joe, because he owned a gun was practiced in it use and care, thus requiring far less training and resources when called upon.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The entire South, got Infringed by well regulated militias of the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For the purpose of this discussion, that is meaningless.   No one, in all these pages of discussion has said militias could not fight.  And the main reason the Union won was the vastly superior resources, not the militia.
> 
> The only thing it proves is the point that people have been trying to make to you.  The men who signed up and went to fight Johnny Reb were not organized militia until they were called up.  They did not drill before they were needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it isn't.  Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; it Had to happen that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the militia is well regulated.   But the individual was not regulated until he joined the militia.   Citizen soldiers.  And the 2nd amendment does not say anything about the rights of the militia.  It addresses the right of the people.   That gives the individual the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the Militia; You are either, well regulated or unorganized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me help you understand.   Let's make a hypothetical Civil War example.
> Joe Smith, who fought with the Illinois 63rd Militia, brought his personal rifle when he joined the militia.  The Illinois 63rd Militia was an organized militia.  Joe was a part of an organized militia after he joined the Illinois 63rd.   But he owned his gun and the 2nd amendment guarantees his right to keep & bear arms.
Click to expand...

He was well regulated.  That was the whole and entire difference.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the purpose of this discussion, that is meaningless.   No one, in all these pages of discussion has said militias could not fight.  And the main reason the Union won was the vastly superior resources, not the militia.
> 
> The only thing it proves is the point that people have been trying to make to you.  The men who signed up and went to fight Johnny Reb were not organized militia until they were called up.  They did not drill before they were needed.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it isn't.  Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; it Had to happen that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the militia is well regulated.   But the individual was not regulated until he joined the militia.   Citizen soldiers.  And the 2nd amendment does not say anything about the rights of the militia.  It addresses the right of the people.   That gives the individual the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the Militia; You are either, well regulated or unorganized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me help you understand.   Let's make a hypothetical Civil War example.
> Joe Smith, who fought with the Illinois 63rd Militia, brought his personal rifle when he joined the militia.  The Illinois 63rd Militia was an organized militia.  Joe was a part of an organized militia after he joined the Illinois 63rd.   But he owned his gun and the 2nd amendment guarantees his right to keep & bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He was well regulated.  That was the whole and entire difference.
Click to expand...


He was well regulated when he served.  Before that he was not.   That is what I have been telling you since the beginning.   The right to keep and bear arms is his, not the militia’s.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it isn't.  Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; it Had to happen that way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the militia is well regulated.   But the individual was not regulated until he joined the militia.   Citizen soldiers.  And the 2nd amendment does not say anything about the rights of the militia.  It addresses the right of the people.   That gives the individual the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the Militia; You are either, well regulated or unorganized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me help you understand.   Let's make a hypothetical Civil War example.
> Joe Smith, who fought with the Illinois 63rd Militia, brought his personal rifle when he joined the militia.  The Illinois 63rd Militia was an organized militia.  Joe was a part of an organized militia after he joined the Illinois 63rd.   But he owned his gun and the 2nd amendment guarantees his right to keep & bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He was well regulated.  That was the whole and entire difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was well regulated when he served.  Before that he was not.   That is what I have been telling you since the beginning.   The right to keep and bear arms is his, not the militia’s.
Click to expand...

Unorganized militias were Infringed, as People; by well regulated militias of the United States; just like it says in our Second Amendment.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the militia is well regulated.   But the individual was not regulated until he joined the militia.   Citizen soldiers.  And the 2nd amendment does not say anything about the rights of the militia.  It addresses the right of the people.   That gives the individual the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> 
> 
> The People are the Militia; You are either, well regulated or unorganized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me help you understand.   Let's make a hypothetical Civil War example.
> Joe Smith, who fought with the Illinois 63rd Militia, brought his personal rifle when he joined the militia.  The Illinois 63rd Militia was an organized militia.  Joe was a part of an organized militia after he joined the Illinois 63rd.   But he owned his gun and the 2nd amendment guarantees his right to keep & bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He was well regulated.  That was the whole and entire difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was well regulated when he served.  Before that he was not.   That is what I have been telling you since the beginning.   The right to keep and bear arms is his, not the militia’s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unorganized militias were Infringed, as People; by well regulated militias of the United States; just like it says in our Second Amendment.
Click to expand...


No they were not.  Citizens with privately owned firearms joined militias and fought to bring the confederate states back into the Union.   The militias are regulated, as our 2nd amendment says.  Private citizen’s right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, just like our 2nd amendment says.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The People are the Militia; You are either, well regulated or unorganized.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me help you understand.   Let's make a hypothetical Civil War example.
> Joe Smith, who fought with the Illinois 63rd Militia, brought his personal rifle when he joined the militia.  The Illinois 63rd Militia was an organized militia.  Joe was a part of an organized militia after he joined the Illinois 63rd.   But he owned his gun and the 2nd amendment guarantees his right to keep & bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He was well regulated.  That was the whole and entire difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was well regulated when he served.  Before that he was not.   That is what I have been telling you since the beginning.   The right to keep and bear arms is his, not the militia’s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unorganized militias were Infringed, as People; by well regulated militias of the United States; just like it says in our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they were not.  Citizens with privately owned firearms joined militias and fought to bring the confederate states back into the Union.   The militias are regulated, as our 2nd amendment says.  Private citizen’s right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, just like our 2nd amendment says.
Click to expand...

The entire South, was Infringed since they were unorganized militia.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me help you understand.   Let's make a hypothetical Civil War example.
> Joe Smith, who fought with the Illinois 63rd Militia, brought his personal rifle when he joined the militia.  The Illinois 63rd Militia was an organized militia.  Joe was a part of an organized militia after he joined the Illinois 63rd.   But he owned his gun and the 2nd amendment guarantees his right to keep & bear arms.
> 
> 
> 
> He was well regulated.  That was the whole and entire difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was well regulated when he served.  Before that he was not.   That is what I have been telling you since the beginning.   The right to keep and bear arms is his, not the militia’s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unorganized militias were Infringed, as People; by well regulated militias of the United States; just like it says in our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they were not.  Citizens with privately owned firearms joined militias and fought to bring the confederate states back into the Union.   The militias are regulated, as our 2nd amendment says.  Private citizen’s right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, just like our 2nd amendment says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The entire South, was Infringed since they were unorganized militia.
Click to expand...


The entire South took up arms against the federal govt.  It had nothing to do with the 2nd amendment whatsoever.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> He was well regulated.  That was the whole and entire difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was well regulated when he served.  Before that he was not.   That is what I have been telling you since the beginning.   The right to keep and bear arms is his, not the militia’s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unorganized militias were Infringed, as People; by well regulated militias of the United States; just like it says in our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they were not.  Citizens with privately owned firearms joined militias and fought to bring the confederate states back into the Union.   The militias are regulated, as our 2nd amendment says.  Private citizen’s right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, just like our 2nd amendment says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The entire South, was Infringed since they were unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The entire South took up arms against the federal govt.  It had nothing to do with the 2nd amendment whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Yes, it did.  The unorganized militia does not have an uninfringed right to keep and bear Arms, when it involves the security of our free States or the Union.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> He was well regulated when he served.  Before that he was not.   That is what I have been telling you since the beginning.   The right to keep and bear arms is his, not the militia’s.
> 
> 
> 
> Unorganized militias were Infringed, as People; by well regulated militias of the United States; just like it says in our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they were not.  Citizens with privately owned firearms joined militias and fought to bring the confederate states back into the Union.   The militias are regulated, as our 2nd amendment says.  Private citizen’s right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, just like our 2nd amendment says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The entire South, was Infringed since they were unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The entire South took up arms against the federal govt.  It had nothing to do with the 2nd amendment whatsoever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it did.  The unorganized militia does not have an uninfringed right to keep and bear Arms, when it involves the security of our free States or the Union.
Click to expand...


Nonsense.   The South was not attacked because their militia was unorganized.   

And none of the militias that defeated the South were organized before the war started.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unorganized militias were Infringed, as People; by well regulated militias of the United States; just like it says in our Second Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No they were not.  Citizens with privately owned firearms joined militias and fought to bring the confederate states back into the Union.   The militias are regulated, as our 2nd amendment says.  Private citizen’s right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, just like our 2nd amendment says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The entire South, was Infringed since they were unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The entire South took up arms against the federal govt.  It had nothing to do with the 2nd amendment whatsoever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it did.  The unorganized militia does not have an uninfringed right to keep and bear Arms, when it involves the security of our free States or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense.   The South was not attacked because their militia was unorganized.
> 
> And none of the militias that defeated the South were organized before the war started.
Click to expand...

reading comprehension is not a right wing strong suit for story tellers.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they were not.  Citizens with privately owned firearms joined militias and fought to bring the confederate states back into the Union.   The militias are regulated, as our 2nd amendment says.  Private citizen’s right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, just like our 2nd amendment says.
> 
> 
> 
> The entire South, was Infringed since they were unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The entire South took up arms against the federal govt.  It had nothing to do with the 2nd amendment whatsoever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it did.  The unorganized militia does not have an uninfringed right to keep and bear Arms, when it involves the security of our free States or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense.   The South was not attacked because their militia was unorganized.
> 
> And none of the militias that defeated the South were organized before the war started.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> reading comprehension is not a right wing strong suit for story tellers.
Click to expand...


What gives you that idea?   What I I not comprehend?  Or is it just more of your "I don't have any argument so I will just try to insult someone"?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The entire South, was Infringed since they were unorganized militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The entire South took up arms against the federal govt.  It had nothing to do with the 2nd amendment whatsoever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it did.  The unorganized militia does not have an uninfringed right to keep and bear Arms, when it involves the security of our free States or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense.   The South was not attacked because their militia was unorganized.
> 
> And none of the militias that defeated the South were organized before the war started.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> reading comprehension is not a right wing strong suit for story tellers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What gives you that idea?   What I I not comprehend?  Or is it just more of your "I don't have any argument so I will just try to insult someone"?
Click to expand...

i love to practice arguing, nothing burgers with the right wing.

The unorganized militia does not have an uninfringed right to keep and bear Arms, when it involves the security of our free States or the Union.


----------



## Pilot1

danielpalos said:


> The unorganized militia does not have an uninfringed right to keep and bear Arms, when it involves the security of our free States or the Union.



Actually it does.  The unorganized militia retains its OWN firearms until it is called up when it becomes the organized militia.  It then uses those personal firearms in service.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The entire South took up arms against the federal govt.  It had nothing to do with the 2nd amendment whatsoever.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it did.  The unorganized militia does not have an uninfringed right to keep and bear Arms, when it involves the security of our free States or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense.   The South was not attacked because their militia was unorganized.
> 
> And none of the militias that defeated the South were organized before the war started.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> reading comprehension is not a right wing strong suit for story tellers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What gives you that idea?   What I I not comprehend?  Or is it just more of your "I don't have any argument so I will just try to insult someone"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i love to practice arguing, nothing burgers with the right wing.
> 
> The unorganized militia does not have an uninfringed right to keep and bear Arms, when it involves the security of our free States or the Union.
Click to expand...


That is exactly what I thought.  You have nothing to say.
YOur post is a meaningless statement.

The 2nd amendment guarantees the individual citizen the right to keep and bear arms.  The organized militia referred to in the 2nd is simply armed citizens who joined or formed a militia.   The Union militias are a perfect example of this.   Those armed citizens were not regulated.  The militia they formed was regulated, and fought for our country.


----------



## danielpalos

Pilot1 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The unorganized militia does not have an uninfringed right to keep and bear Arms, when it involves the security of our free States or the Union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it does.  The unorganized militia retains its OWN firearms until it is called up when it becomes the organized militia.  It then uses those personal firearms in service.
Click to expand...

Nobody is questioning natural rights; we are discussing who may not be Infringed, when the security of a free State is involved.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it did.  The unorganized militia does not have an uninfringed right to keep and bear Arms, when it involves the security of our free States or the Union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.   The South was not attacked because their militia was unorganized.
> 
> And none of the militias that defeated the South were organized before the war started.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> reading comprehension is not a right wing strong suit for story tellers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What gives you that idea?   What I I not comprehend?  Or is it just more of your "I don't have any argument so I will just try to insult someone"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i love to practice arguing, nothing burgers with the right wing.
> 
> The unorganized militia does not have an uninfringed right to keep and bear Arms, when it involves the security of our free States or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is exactly what I thought.  You have nothing to say.
> YOur post is a meaningless statement.
> 
> The 2nd amendment guarantees the individual citizen the right to keep and bear arms.  The organized militia referred to in the 2nd is simply armed citizens who joined or formed a militia.   The Union militias are a perfect example of this.   Those armed citizens were not regulated.  The militia they formed was regulated, and fought for our country.
Click to expand...

You don't know what you are talking about.  Well regulated militia are also, The People.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.   The South was not attacked because their militia was unorganized.
> 
> And none of the militias that defeated the South were organized before the war started.
> 
> 
> 
> reading comprehension is not a right wing strong suit for story tellers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What gives you that idea?   What I I not comprehend?  Or is it just more of your "I don't have any argument so I will just try to insult someone"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i love to practice arguing, nothing burgers with the right wing.
> 
> The unorganized militia does not have an uninfringed right to keep and bear Arms, when it involves the security of our free States or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is exactly what I thought.  You have nothing to say.
> YOur post is a meaningless statement.
> 
> The 2nd amendment guarantees the individual citizen the right to keep and bear arms.  The organized militia referred to in the 2nd is simply armed citizens who joined or formed a militia.   The Union militias are a perfect example of this.   Those armed citizens were not regulated.  The militia they formed was regulated, and fought for our country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about.  Well regulated militia are also, The People.
Click to expand...


The people are not necessarily the militia.  The militia does come from the people.  But until the militia is formed or called up, the people are not the militia.  And so they are not regulated as a militia is.

The simple fact is that the founding fathers saw the militia as an alternative to a huge standing army, which they disliked.  Their idea was to use citizen soldiers.   So there was no huge military unless it was needed, and then citizen soldiers formed and joined militia, and served.  This is all clearly documented in the writings of the day.

But your claims that the militia is perpetual is simply wrong.  And the people, even those who may serve in the militia if needed, are not regulated until they join the militia.

The SCOTUS has ruled that there can be regulations on firearms.  But the people are not militia until they are needed and join/form a militia.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> reading comprehension is not a right wing strong suit for story tellers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What gives you that idea?   What I I not comprehend?  Or is it just more of your "I don't have any argument so I will just try to insult someone"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i love to practice arguing, nothing burgers with the right wing.
> 
> The unorganized militia does not have an uninfringed right to keep and bear Arms, when it involves the security of our free States or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is exactly what I thought.  You have nothing to say.
> YOur post is a meaningless statement.
> 
> The 2nd amendment guarantees the individual citizen the right to keep and bear arms.  The organized militia referred to in the 2nd is simply armed citizens who joined or formed a militia.   The Union militias are a perfect example of this.   Those armed citizens were not regulated.  The militia they formed was regulated, and fought for our country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about.  Well regulated militia are also, The People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The people are not necessarily the militia.
Click to expand...

Yes, they are; those are the Only options available in our Second Amendment.


----------



## westwall

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> What gives you that idea?   What I I not comprehend?  Or is it just more of your "I don't have any argument so I will just try to insult someone"?
> 
> 
> 
> i love to practice arguing, nothing burgers with the right wing.
> 
> The unorganized militia does not have an uninfringed right to keep and bear Arms, when it involves the security of our free States or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is exactly what I thought.  You have nothing to say.
> YOur post is a meaningless statement.
> 
> The 2nd amendment guarantees the individual citizen the right to keep and bear arms.  The organized militia referred to in the 2nd is simply armed citizens who joined or formed a militia.   The Union militias are a perfect example of this.   Those armed citizens were not regulated.  The militia they formed was regulated, and fought for our country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about.  Well regulated militia are also, The People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The people are not necessarily the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are; those are the Only options available in our Second Amendment.
Click to expand...






Wrong.  The only thing mentioned as an entity, and not merely as a descriptor is the PEOPLE.  The militia is merely mentioned as a reason, the PEOPLE are the only things recognized to have RIGHTS.


----------



## Frankeneinstein

Daryl Hunt said:


> I won't look at today.  I will look at the time around 1790.
> 
> *Militia Act of 1792*
> _Every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.
> _
> First we need to look at who was a Citizen in 1790s.  In the 1790s, ALL Blacks even free Blacks were prohibited from owning and carrying firearms.  All People even whites that would not swear allegiance to the newly formed United States were prohibited from owning or carrying fire arms.  Women were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms.  Bonded Slaves, even whites were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms of any kind.  It all pretty much boiled down that a Citizen was a Free White Male Land Owner deemed to be in good standing with the Existing Government both Stated and Federal Governments.  It's been estimated that only about 8% of the population from that time met the full requirement to own, possess and carry firearms legally.  Remember, more than half of the population of that time either supported the Crown or leaned heavily in that direction.  The Newly Formed Colonist Government did exactly what the British Government tried to do themselves.
> 
> There were two rebellions that made the Militia Act of 1792 to be written and adopted.  The Shays Rebellion of 1786-1787 and the Whiskey Rebellion 1791-1794.  While neither amounted to much, the founding fathers were scared to death that something else might come up that might endanger the newly formed Government so they adopted the 2nd Amendment as it was written since there was no Standing Army to prevent any decent resurrection from becoming successful.    It was left up to each state individually to provide the militias to prevent it from happening.  As long as the states agreed and didn't go to war with each other.
> 
> Using the original definition, if you don't own your House, Farm or Business and you don't completely and blindly support our current Government then are not a Citizen in Good Standings and will not be afforded the right to own, posses or carry any form of Firearms.  Oh, and you must be a Free White Male as well.


Fortunately the problem has been corrected


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> What gives you that idea?   What I I not comprehend?  Or is it just more of your "I don't have any argument so I will just try to insult someone"?
> 
> 
> 
> i love to practice arguing, nothing burgers with the right wing.
> 
> The unorganized militia does not have an uninfringed right to keep and bear Arms, when it involves the security of our free States or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is exactly what I thought.  You have nothing to say.
> YOur post is a meaningless statement.
> 
> The 2nd amendment guarantees the individual citizen the right to keep and bear arms.  The organized militia referred to in the 2nd is simply armed citizens who joined or formed a militia.   The Union militias are a perfect example of this.   Those armed citizens were not regulated.  The militia they formed was regulated, and fought for our country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about.  Well regulated militia are also, The People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The people are not necessarily the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are; those are the Only options available in our Second Amendment.
Click to expand...


You have no idea what you are talking about.  But then, from the way you have bounced around on this topic, I am not surprised.

The militia referred to in the 2nd amendment is not a standing army.  It is called up when needed.  That is why the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


----------



## LuckyDuck

Daryl Hunt said:


> I won't look at today.  I will look at the time around 1790.
> 
> *Militia Act of 1792*
> _Every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.
> _
> First we need to look at who was a Citizen in 1790s.  In the 1790s, ALL Blacks even free Blacks were prohibited from owning and carrying firearms.  All People even whites that would not swear allegiance to the newly formed United States were prohibited from owning or carrying fire arms.  Women were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms.  Bonded Slaves, even whites were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms of any kind.  It all pretty much boiled down that a Citizen was a Free White Male Land Owner deemed to be in good standing with the Existing Government both Stated and Federal Governments.  It's been estimated that only about 8% of the population from that time met the full requirement to own, possess and carry firearms legally.  Remember, more than half of the population of that time either supported the Crown or leaned heavily in that direction.  The Newly Formed Colonist Government did exactly what the British Government tried to do themselves.
> 
> There were two rebellions that made the Militia Act of 1792 to be written and adopted.  The Shays Rebellion of 1786-1787 and the Whiskey Rebellion 1791-1794.  While neither amounted to much, the founding fathers were scared to death that something else might come up that might endanger the newly formed Government so they adopted the 2nd Amendment as it was written since there was no Standing Army to prevent any decent resurrection from becoming successful.    It was left up to each state individually to provide the militias to prevent it from happening.  As long as the states agreed and didn't go to war with each other.
> 
> Using the original definition, if you don't own your House, Farm or Business and you don't completely and blindly support our current Government then are not a Citizen in Good Standings and will not be afforded the right to own, posses or carry any form of Firearms.  Oh, and you must be a Free White Male as well.


The US Constitution doesn't mention women, but in current interpretations it is understood that when saying "all men" modern reference also includes women.  It is also understood that by modern standards, blacks are included in the concept of "all men."
The 2nd Amendment was drafted to allow states to have well-regulated militias to defend against tyrannical foreign government invasion, as well as to defend against our own domestic government, should it too become tyrannical/oppressive.  These well-regulated militias are not limited to only defending their own states, but also to form and fight against their own state government, should it too become tyrannical (i.e., should Marxism take hold).  
To defend against a tyrannical government, whether our own, or a foreign invading power, it was anticipated that such a militia should be adequately armed to deter an armed opposing force and thus our militias should be equally armed in that defense.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

LuckyDuck said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I won't look at today.  I will look at the time around 1790.
> 
> *Militia Act of 1792*
> _Every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.
> _
> First we need to look at who was a Citizen in 1790s.  In the 1790s, ALL Blacks even free Blacks were prohibited from owning and carrying firearms.  All People even whites that would not swear allegiance to the newly formed United States were prohibited from owning or carrying fire arms.  Women were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms.  Bonded Slaves, even whites were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms of any kind.  It all pretty much boiled down that a Citizen was a Free White Male Land Owner deemed to be in good standing with the Existing Government both Stated and Federal Governments.  It's been estimated that only about 8% of the population from that time met the full requirement to own, possess and carry firearms legally.  Remember, more than half of the population of that time either supported the Crown or leaned heavily in that direction.  The Newly Formed Colonist Government did exactly what the British Government tried to do themselves.
> 
> There were two rebellions that made the Militia Act of 1792 to be written and adopted.  The Shays Rebellion of 1786-1787 and the Whiskey Rebellion 1791-1794.  While neither amounted to much, the founding fathers were scared to death that something else might come up that might endanger the newly formed Government so they adopted the 2nd Amendment as it was written since there was no Standing Army to prevent any decent resurrection from becoming successful.    It was left up to each state individually to provide the militias to prevent it from happening.  As long as the states agreed and didn't go to war with each other.
> 
> Using the original definition, if you don't own your House, Farm or Business and you don't completely and blindly support our current Government then are not a Citizen in Good Standings and will not be afforded the right to own, posses or carry any form of Firearms.  Oh, and you must be a Free White Male as well.
> 
> 
> 
> The US Constitution doesn't mention women, but in current interpretations it is understood that when saying "all men" modern reference also includes women.  It is also understood that by modern standards, blacks are included in the concept of "all men."
> The 2nd Amendment was drafted to allow states to have well-regulated militias to defend against tyrannical foreign government invasion, as well as to defend against our own domestic government, should it too become tyrannical/oppressive.  These well-regulated militias are not limited to only defending their own states, but also to form and fight against their own state government, should it too become tyrannical (i.e., should Marxism take hold).
> To defend against a tyrannical government, whether our own, or a foreign invading power, it was anticipated that such a militia should be adequately armed to deter an armed opposing force and thus our militias should be equally armed in that defense.
Click to expand...


You are somewhat reading into the 2nd amendment.  It was never intended to include the State Government as becoming Tyrannical.  The other state Militias would be used to prevent that as requested by the Federal Government.  There was nothing in there that covered a rogue state other than it just leaving the union and going it's own way.  For the first years, this was a real possibility and it made the states work together to keep it from happening.  Of course, outside nations were waiting in the wings to swoop down on the fledgling nation so it was in their best interest to stay together.  But there is no mention of a State becoming as you suggest.  

You can't have a well regulated Militia without the State.  Some entity must be the regulatory agency to regulate the militia in order for it to be a well regulated militia.  Otherwise, it's just a bunch of guys dress in green playing with guns running around the wood scaring the hell out of the wild life.


----------



## LuckyDuck

Daryl Hunt said:


> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I won't look at today.  I will look at the time around 1790.
> 
> *Militia Act of 1792*
> _Every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.
> _
> First we need to look at who was a Citizen in 1790s.  In the 1790s, ALL Blacks even free Blacks were prohibited from owning and carrying firearms.  All People even whites that would not swear allegiance to the newly formed United States were prohibited from owning or carrying fire arms.  Women were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms.  Bonded Slaves, even whites were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms of any kind.  It all pretty much boiled down that a Citizen was a Free White Male Land Owner deemed to be in good standing with the Existing Government both Stated and Federal Governments.  It's been estimated that only about 8% of the population from that time met the full requirement to own, possess and carry firearms legally.  Remember, more than half of the population of that time either supported the Crown or leaned heavily in that direction.  The Newly Formed Colonist Government did exactly what the British Government tried to do themselves.
> 
> There were two rebellions that made the Militia Act of 1792 to be written and adopted.  The Shays Rebellion of 1786-1787 and the Whiskey Rebellion 1791-1794.  While neither amounted to much, the founding fathers were scared to death that something else might come up that might endanger the newly formed Government so they adopted the 2nd Amendment as it was written since there was no Standing Army to prevent any decent resurrection from becoming successful.    It was left up to each state individually to provide the militias to prevent it from happening.  As long as the states agreed and didn't go to war with each other.
> 
> Using the original definition, if you don't own your House, Farm or Business and you don't completely and blindly support our current Government then are not a Citizen in Good Standings and will not be afforded the right to own, posses or carry any form of Firearms.  Oh, and you must be a Free White Male as well.
> 
> 
> 
> The US Constitution doesn't mention women, but in current interpretations it is understood that when saying "all men" modern reference also includes women.  It is also understood that by modern standards, blacks are included in the concept of "all men."
> The 2nd Amendment was drafted to allow states to have well-regulated militias to defend against tyrannical foreign government invasion, as well as to defend against our own domestic government, should it too become tyrannical/oppressive.  These well-regulated militias are not limited to only defending their own states, but also to form and fight against their own state government, should it too become tyrannical (i.e., should Marxism take hold).
> To defend against a tyrannical government, whether our own, or a foreign invading power, it was anticipated that such a militia should be adequately armed to deter an armed opposing force and thus our militias should be equally armed in that defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are somewhat reading into the 2nd amendment.  It was never intended to include the State Government as becoming Tyrannical.  The other state Militias would be used to prevent that as requested by the Federal Government.  There was nothing in there that covered a rogue state other than it just leaving the union and going it's own way.  For the first years, this was a real possibility and it made the states work together to keep it from happening.  Of course, outside nations were waiting in the wings to swoop down on the fledgling nation so it was in their best interest to stay together.  But there is no mention of a State becoming as you suggest.
> 
> You can't have a well regulated Militia without the State.  Some entity must be the regulatory agency to regulate the militia in order for it to be a well regulated militia.  Otherwise, it's just a bunch of guys dress in green playing with guns running around the wood scaring the hell out of the wild life.
Click to expand...

If our own government were to become Marxist, that would make it a tyrannical government and by the same token the states would follow suit and thus a regulated militia would need to be formed to fight the state and formerly federal government.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

LuckyDuck said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I won't look at today.  I will look at the time around 1790.
> 
> *Militia Act of 1792*
> _Every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.
> _
> First we need to look at who was a Citizen in 1790s.  In the 1790s, ALL Blacks even free Blacks were prohibited from owning and carrying firearms.  All People even whites that would not swear allegiance to the newly formed United States were prohibited from owning or carrying fire arms.  Women were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms.  Bonded Slaves, even whites were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms of any kind.  It all pretty much boiled down that a Citizen was a Free White Male Land Owner deemed to be in good standing with the Existing Government both Stated and Federal Governments.  It's been estimated that only about 8% of the population from that time met the full requirement to own, possess and carry firearms legally.  Remember, more than half of the population of that time either supported the Crown or leaned heavily in that direction.  The Newly Formed Colonist Government did exactly what the British Government tried to do themselves.
> 
> There were two rebellions that made the Militia Act of 1792 to be written and adopted.  The Shays Rebellion of 1786-1787 and the Whiskey Rebellion 1791-1794.  While neither amounted to much, the founding fathers were scared to death that something else might come up that might endanger the newly formed Government so they adopted the 2nd Amendment as it was written since there was no Standing Army to prevent any decent resurrection from becoming successful.    It was left up to each state individually to provide the militias to prevent it from happening.  As long as the states agreed and didn't go to war with each other.
> 
> Using the original definition, if you don't own your House, Farm or Business and you don't completely and blindly support our current Government then are not a Citizen in Good Standings and will not be afforded the right to own, posses or carry any form of Firearms.  Oh, and you must be a Free White Male as well.
> 
> 
> 
> The US Constitution doesn't mention women, but in current interpretations it is understood that when saying "all men" modern reference also includes women.  It is also understood that by modern standards, blacks are included in the concept of "all men."
> The 2nd Amendment was drafted to allow states to have well-regulated militias to defend against tyrannical foreign government invasion, as well as to defend against our own domestic government, should it too become tyrannical/oppressive.  These well-regulated militias are not limited to only defending their own states, but also to form and fight against their own state government, should it too become tyrannical (i.e., should Marxism take hold).
> To defend against a tyrannical government, whether our own, or a foreign invading power, it was anticipated that such a militia should be adequately armed to deter an armed opposing force and thus our militias should be equally armed in that defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are somewhat reading into the 2nd amendment.  It was never intended to include the State Government as becoming Tyrannical.  The other state Militias would be used to prevent that as requested by the Federal Government.  There was nothing in there that covered a rogue state other than it just leaving the union and going it's own way.  For the first years, this was a real possibility and it made the states work together to keep it from happening.  Of course, outside nations were waiting in the wings to swoop down on the fledgling nation so it was in their best interest to stay together.  But there is no mention of a State becoming as you suggest.
> 
> You can't have a well regulated Militia without the State.  Some entity must be the regulatory agency to regulate the militia in order for it to be a well regulated militia.  Otherwise, it's just a bunch of guys dress in green playing with guns running around the wood scaring the hell out of the wild life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If our own government were to become Marxist, that would make it a tyrannical government and by the same token the states would follow suit and thus a regulated militia would need to be formed to fight the state and formerly federal government.
Click to expand...


In order to become Marxist, the whole Constitution would have to be thrown out.  It's a known fact that a Marxist Government cannot exist.  It's a myth.  Carl Marx made some good points but no one has ever been able to make it work.  Ever.  It's an Academic exercise, nothing more.  There are a few "Governments" that claim to be Marxist but they really aren't.  All of them are generally Kingdoms, Dictators and Oligarchs which are far from Marxist.   But calling themselves Marxist sounds much better than what they really are.  You will notice that Cuba claims to be Lenin/Marx.  But Lenin knew that he could not achieve Marxism unless the whole world did it at the same time.  He devised a method of world conquest through military and diplomatic tomfoolery.  It was based on a lie.  He just wanted to rule the world.  But it goes down much better if you call it something else like Marxism or Communism which also cannot exist on a national level.  The same name game is played by calling a government Socialist like Nazi Germany or USSR.  Nazi Germany was a Dictator as was Stalin's USSR.  But it sounds much better to call themselves Socialists than Dictators.  Is there any doubt that Premier Kim is a Dictator and not a Socialist, Communist or Marxist?  

Now, how about getting real here. You aren't making a whole lot of sense.


----------



## LuckyDuck

Daryl Hunt said:


> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I won't look at today.  I will look at the time around 1790.
> 
> *Militia Act of 1792*
> _Every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.
> _
> First we need to look at who was a Citizen in 1790s.  In the 1790s, ALL Blacks even free Blacks were prohibited from owning and carrying firearms.  All People even whites that would not swear allegiance to the newly formed United States were prohibited from owning or carrying fire arms.  Women were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms.  Bonded Slaves, even whites were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms of any kind.  It all pretty much boiled down that a Citizen was a Free White Male Land Owner deemed to be in good standing with the Existing Government both Stated and Federal Governments.  It's been estimated that only about 8% of the population from that time met the full requirement to own, possess and carry firearms legally.  Remember, more than half of the population of that time either supported the Crown or leaned heavily in that direction.  The Newly Formed Colonist Government did exactly what the British Government tried to do themselves.
> 
> There were two rebellions that made the Militia Act of 1792 to be written and adopted.  The Shays Rebellion of 1786-1787 and the Whiskey Rebellion 1791-1794.  While neither amounted to much, the founding fathers were scared to death that something else might come up that might endanger the newly formed Government so they adopted the 2nd Amendment as it was written since there was no Standing Army to prevent any decent resurrection from becoming successful.    It was left up to each state individually to provide the militias to prevent it from happening.  As long as the states agreed and didn't go to war with each other.
> 
> Using the original definition, if you don't own your House, Farm or Business and you don't completely and blindly support our current Government then are not a Citizen in Good Standings and will not be afforded the right to own, posses or carry any form of Firearms.  Oh, and you must be a Free White Male as well.
> 
> 
> 
> The US Constitution doesn't mention women, but in current interpretations it is understood that when saying "all men" modern reference also includes women.  It is also understood that by modern standards, blacks are included in the concept of "all men."
> The 2nd Amendment was drafted to allow states to have well-regulated militias to defend against tyrannical foreign government invasion, as well as to defend against our own domestic government, should it too become tyrannical/oppressive.  These well-regulated militias are not limited to only defending their own states, but also to form and fight against their own state government, should it too become tyrannical (i.e., should Marxism take hold).
> To defend against a tyrannical government, whether our own, or a foreign invading power, it was anticipated that such a militia should be adequately armed to deter an armed opposing force and thus our militias should be equally armed in that defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are somewhat reading into the 2nd amendment.  It was never intended to include the State Government as becoming Tyrannical.  The other state Militias would be used to prevent that as requested by the Federal Government.  There was nothing in there that covered a rogue state other than it just leaving the union and going it's own way.  For the first years, this was a real possibility and it made the states work together to keep it from happening.  Of course, outside nations were waiting in the wings to swoop down on the fledgling nation so it was in their best interest to stay together.  But there is no mention of a State becoming as you suggest.
> 
> You can't have a well regulated Militia without the State.  Some entity must be the regulatory agency to regulate the militia in order for it to be a well regulated militia.  Otherwise, it's just a bunch of guys dress in green playing with guns running around the wood scaring the hell out of the wild life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If our own government were to become Marxist, that would make it a tyrannical government and by the same token the states would follow suit and thus a regulated militia would need to be formed to fight the state and formerly federal government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In order to become Marxist, the whole Constitution would have to be thrown out.  It's a known fact that a Marxist Government cannot exist.  It's a myth.  Carl Marx made some good points but no one has ever been able to make it work.  Ever.  It's an Academic exercise, nothing more.  There are a few "Governments" that claim to be Marxist but they really aren't.  All of them are generally Kingdoms, Dictators and Oligarchs which are far from Marxist.   But calling themselves Marxist sounds much better than what they really are.  You will notice that Cuba claims to be Lenin/Marx.  But Lenin knew that he could not achieve Marxism unless the whole world did it at the same time.  He devised a method of world conquest through military and diplomatic tomfoolery.  It was based on a lie.  He just wanted to rule the world.  But it goes down much better if you call it something else like Marxism or Communism which also cannot exist on a national level.  The same name game is played by calling a government Socialist like Nazi Germany or USSR.  Nazi Germany was a Dictator as was Stalin's USSR.  But it sounds much better to call themselves Socialists than Dictators.  Is there any doubt that Premier Kim is a Dictator and not a Socialist, Communist or Marxist?
> 
> Now, how about getting real here. You aren't making a whole lot of sense.
Click to expand...

Okay, let's drop the title, "Marxist" and go with "Socialist" government.  A large government with control over most aspects of peoples lives (i.e., Venezuela, Cuba, China, et cetera).


----------



## Daryl Hunt

LuckyDuck said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I won't look at today.  I will look at the time around 1790.
> 
> *Militia Act of 1792*
> _Every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.
> _
> First we need to look at who was a Citizen in 1790s.  In the 1790s, ALL Blacks even free Blacks were prohibited from owning and carrying firearms.  All People even whites that would not swear allegiance to the newly formed United States were prohibited from owning or carrying fire arms.  Women were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms.  Bonded Slaves, even whites were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms of any kind.  It all pretty much boiled down that a Citizen was a Free White Male Land Owner deemed to be in good standing with the Existing Government both Stated and Federal Governments.  It's been estimated that only about 8% of the population from that time met the full requirement to own, possess and carry firearms legally.  Remember, more than half of the population of that time either supported the Crown or leaned heavily in that direction.  The Newly Formed Colonist Government did exactly what the British Government tried to do themselves.
> 
> There were two rebellions that made the Militia Act of 1792 to be written and adopted.  The Shays Rebellion of 1786-1787 and the Whiskey Rebellion 1791-1794.  While neither amounted to much, the founding fathers were scared to death that something else might come up that might endanger the newly formed Government so they adopted the 2nd Amendment as it was written since there was no Standing Army to prevent any decent resurrection from becoming successful.    It was left up to each state individually to provide the militias to prevent it from happening.  As long as the states agreed and didn't go to war with each other.
> 
> Using the original definition, if you don't own your House, Farm or Business and you don't completely and blindly support our current Government then are not a Citizen in Good Standings and will not be afforded the right to own, posses or carry any form of Firearms.  Oh, and you must be a Free White Male as well.
> 
> 
> 
> The US Constitution doesn't mention women, but in current interpretations it is understood that when saying "all men" modern reference also includes women.  It is also understood that by modern standards, blacks are included in the concept of "all men."
> The 2nd Amendment was drafted to allow states to have well-regulated militias to defend against tyrannical foreign government invasion, as well as to defend against our own domestic government, should it too become tyrannical/oppressive.  These well-regulated militias are not limited to only defending their own states, but also to form and fight against their own state government, should it too become tyrannical (i.e., should Marxism take hold).
> To defend against a tyrannical government, whether our own, or a foreign invading power, it was anticipated that such a militia should be adequately armed to deter an armed opposing force and thus our militias should be equally armed in that defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are somewhat reading into the 2nd amendment.  It was never intended to include the State Government as becoming Tyrannical.  The other state Militias would be used to prevent that as requested by the Federal Government.  There was nothing in there that covered a rogue state other than it just leaving the union and going it's own way.  For the first years, this was a real possibility and it made the states work together to keep it from happening.  Of course, outside nations were waiting in the wings to swoop down on the fledgling nation so it was in their best interest to stay together.  But there is no mention of a State becoming as you suggest.
> 
> You can't have a well regulated Militia without the State.  Some entity must be the regulatory agency to regulate the militia in order for it to be a well regulated militia.  Otherwise, it's just a bunch of guys dress in green playing with guns running around the wood scaring the hell out of the wild life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If our own government were to become Marxist, that would make it a tyrannical government and by the same token the states would follow suit and thus a regulated militia would need to be formed to fight the state and formerly federal government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In order to become Marxist, the whole Constitution would have to be thrown out.  It's a known fact that a Marxist Government cannot exist.  It's a myth.  Carl Marx made some good points but no one has ever been able to make it work.  Ever.  It's an Academic exercise, nothing more.  There are a few "Governments" that claim to be Marxist but they really aren't.  All of them are generally Kingdoms, Dictators and Oligarchs which are far from Marxist.   But calling themselves Marxist sounds much better than what they really are.  You will notice that Cuba claims to be Lenin/Marx.  But Lenin knew that he could not achieve Marxism unless the whole world did it at the same time.  He devised a method of world conquest through military and diplomatic tomfoolery.  It was based on a lie.  He just wanted to rule the world.  But it goes down much better if you call it something else like Marxism or Communism which also cannot exist on a national level.  The same name game is played by calling a government Socialist like Nazi Germany or USSR.  Nazi Germany was a Dictator as was Stalin's USSR.  But it sounds much better to call themselves Socialists than Dictators.  Is there any doubt that Premier Kim is a Dictator and not a Socialist, Communist or Marxist?
> 
> Now, how about getting real here. You aren't making a whole lot of sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, let's drop the title, "Marxist" and go with "Socialist" government.  A large government with control over most aspects of peoples lives (i.e., Venezuela, Cuba, China, et cetera).
Click to expand...


Sure am glad you brought those three up.  Yes, they call themselves Socialist.  But they aren't.  

Venezuela is  a Dictatorship that  masquerades as a Socialist state.  
Cuba is a Dictatorship that is also pretends to be a Socialist State.
China is an Oligarchy that pretends to be a Socialist state.

In order to be a Socialist State unfettered and fair elections must be held and the will of the people must be help above all else.  None of the 3 you mentioned has that.  In fact, Cuba and China don't have elections for the common people at all.  And Venezuela tightly controls the elections so that only the "Leader" will win.  The only real Socialist Country I know of is Denmark and no one in Denmark claims to actually have a Socialist Country although they do fit the criteria all the way.  It seems these other "Fake" Socialist countries have given the name Socialism a really bad name.  The reason that these countries don't use what they really are is that if they did they could not stand in front of the "Oppressed" and make them think that things are going so well.  So they call their selves much nicer names and don't allow their subjects the ability to see any different.

Socialism is a very hard act to accomplish and only a handful in the world is doing it.  But it can't be done by countries the size of the US.  Socialism can't exist in large populations much like Democratic Governments can't either.  Both are wonderful thoughts but can't happen once you get past a room full of people.  So we use parts of them in our Government.  Any real successful government does this.  We should do the same for Capitalism.  We borrow from all three.  What you end up with is a Federal Republic.  But beware, it's a tight rope act.  Right now, we are heavily into leaning towards the Capitalism which also doesn't work in large populations.  In the past, we have also leaned too far in the Socialism way but we always go back to the center.  But we have NEVER been this far into one thing or the other like we are today.  The Total Collapse happens when you get too far away from the happy balance.  And we are quickly headed that way again.  Not to worry, with the system our FFs setup, the swing will bring it back again.  

We need a bit of Socialism for some things.  We need a bit of Capitalism for other things and we need Democracy for others.  Just be very careful that we don't swing too far from the center like we are today.  And it ain't Socialism that is the enemy right now.  We need to get Corporations out of owning the Government.  You fight to do that and you would be surprised at how low what you fear from Socialism gets weaker when more people actually get to work and the need of crime goes down.


----------



## LuckyDuck

Daryl Hunt said:


> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> The US Constitution doesn't mention women, but in current interpretations it is understood that when saying "all men" modern reference also includes women.  It is also understood that by modern standards, blacks are included in the concept of "all men."
> The 2nd Amendment was drafted to allow states to have well-regulated militias to defend against tyrannical foreign government invasion, as well as to defend against our own domestic government, should it too become tyrannical/oppressive.  These well-regulated militias are not limited to only defending their own states, but also to form and fight against their own state government, should it too become tyrannical (i.e., should Marxism take hold).
> To defend against a tyrannical government, whether our own, or a foreign invading power, it was anticipated that such a militia should be adequately armed to deter an armed opposing force and thus our militias should be equally armed in that defense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are somewhat reading into the 2nd amendment.  It was never intended to include the State Government as becoming Tyrannical.  The other state Militias would be used to prevent that as requested by the Federal Government.  There was nothing in there that covered a rogue state other than it just leaving the union and going it's own way.  For the first years, this was a real possibility and it made the states work together to keep it from happening.  Of course, outside nations were waiting in the wings to swoop down on the fledgling nation so it was in their best interest to stay together.  But there is no mention of a State becoming as you suggest.
> 
> You can't have a well regulated Militia without the State.  Some entity must be the regulatory agency to regulate the militia in order for it to be a well regulated militia.  Otherwise, it's just a bunch of guys dress in green playing with guns running around the wood scaring the hell out of the wild life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If our own government were to become Marxist, that would make it a tyrannical government and by the same token the states would follow suit and thus a regulated militia would need to be formed to fight the state and formerly federal government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In order to become Marxist, the whole Constitution would have to be thrown out.  It's a known fact that a Marxist Government cannot exist.  It's a myth.  Carl Marx made some good points but no one has ever been able to make it work.  Ever.  It's an Academic exercise, nothing more.  There are a few "Governments" that claim to be Marxist but they really aren't.  All of them are generally Kingdoms, Dictators and Oligarchs which are far from Marxist.   But calling themselves Marxist sounds much better than what they really are.  You will notice that Cuba claims to be Lenin/Marx.  But Lenin knew that he could not achieve Marxism unless the whole world did it at the same time.  He devised a method of world conquest through military and diplomatic tomfoolery.  It was based on a lie.  He just wanted to rule the world.  But it goes down much better if you call it something else like Marxism or Communism which also cannot exist on a national level.  The same name game is played by calling a government Socialist like Nazi Germany or USSR.  Nazi Germany was a Dictator as was Stalin's USSR.  But it sounds much better to call themselves Socialists than Dictators.  Is there any doubt that Premier Kim is a Dictator and not a Socialist, Communist or Marxist?
> 
> Now, how about getting real here. You aren't making a whole lot of sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, let's drop the title, "Marxist" and go with "Socialist" government.  A large government with control over most aspects of peoples lives (i.e., Venezuela, Cuba, China, et cetera).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure am glad you brought those three up.  Yes, they call themselves Socialist.  But they aren't.
> 
> Venezuela is  a Dictatorship that  masquerades as a Socialist state.
> Cuba is a Dictatorship that is also pretends to be a Socialist State.
> China is an Oligarchy that pretends to be a Socialist state.
> 
> In order to be a Socialist State unfettered and fair elections must be held and the will of the people must be help above all else.  None of the 3 you mentioned has that.  In fact, Cuba and China don't have elections for the common people at all.  And Venezuela tightly controls the elections so that only the "Leader" will win.  The only real Socialist Country I know of is Denmark and no one in Denmark claims to actually have a Socialist Country although they do fit the criteria all the way.  It seems these other "Fake" Socialist countries have given the name Socialism a really bad name.  The reason that these countries don't use what they really are is that if they did they could not stand in front of the "Oppressed" and make them think that things are going so well.  So they call their selves much nicer names and don't allow their subjects the ability to see any different.
> 
> Socialism is a very hard act to accomplish and only a handful in the world is doing it.  But it can't be done by countries the size of the US.  Socialism can't exist in large populations much like Democratic Governments can't either.  Both are wonderful thoughts but can't happen once you get past a room full of people.  So we use parts of them in our Government.  Any real successful government does this.  We should do the same for Capitalism.  We borrow from all three.  What you end up with is a Federal Republic.  But beware, it's a tight rope act.  Right now, we are heavily into leaning towards the Capitalism which also doesn't work in large populations.  In the past, we have also leaned too far in the Socialism way but we always go back to the center.  But we have NEVER been this far into one thing or the other like we are today.  The Total Collapse happens when you get too far away from the happy balance.  And we are quickly headed that way again.  Not to worry, with the system our FFs setup, the swing will bring it back again.
> 
> We need a bit of Socialism for some things.  We need a bit of Capitalism for other things and we need Democracy for others.  Just be very careful that we don't swing too far from the center like we are today.  And it ain't Socialism that is the enemy right now.  We need to get Corporations out of owning the Government.  You fight to do that and you would be surprised at how low what you fear from Socialism gets weaker when more people actually get to work and the need of crime goes down.
Click to expand...

To quote Vladimir Lenin:  "Democracy is essential for Socialism to exist."
We are a Capitalist "Republic" and this is what we must stay.  If this nation becomes Socialist, I will take up arms against it.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

LuckyDuck said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are somewhat reading into the 2nd amendment.  It was never intended to include the State Government as becoming Tyrannical.  The other state Militias would be used to prevent that as requested by the Federal Government.  There was nothing in there that covered a rogue state other than it just leaving the union and going it's own way.  For the first years, this was a real possibility and it made the states work together to keep it from happening.  Of course, outside nations were waiting in the wings to swoop down on the fledgling nation so it was in their best interest to stay together.  But there is no mention of a State becoming as you suggest.
> 
> You can't have a well regulated Militia without the State.  Some entity must be the regulatory agency to regulate the militia in order for it to be a well regulated militia.  Otherwise, it's just a bunch of guys dress in green playing with guns running around the wood scaring the hell out of the wild life.
> 
> 
> 
> If our own government were to become Marxist, that would make it a tyrannical government and by the same token the states would follow suit and thus a regulated militia would need to be formed to fight the state and formerly federal government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In order to become Marxist, the whole Constitution would have to be thrown out.  It's a known fact that a Marxist Government cannot exist.  It's a myth.  Carl Marx made some good points but no one has ever been able to make it work.  Ever.  It's an Academic exercise, nothing more.  There are a few "Governments" that claim to be Marxist but they really aren't.  All of them are generally Kingdoms, Dictators and Oligarchs which are far from Marxist.   But calling themselves Marxist sounds much better than what they really are.  You will notice that Cuba claims to be Lenin/Marx.  But Lenin knew that he could not achieve Marxism unless the whole world did it at the same time.  He devised a method of world conquest through military and diplomatic tomfoolery.  It was based on a lie.  He just wanted to rule the world.  But it goes down much better if you call it something else like Marxism or Communism which also cannot exist on a national level.  The same name game is played by calling a government Socialist like Nazi Germany or USSR.  Nazi Germany was a Dictator as was Stalin's USSR.  But it sounds much better to call themselves Socialists than Dictators.  Is there any doubt that Premier Kim is a Dictator and not a Socialist, Communist or Marxist?
> 
> Now, how about getting real here. You aren't making a whole lot of sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, let's drop the title, "Marxist" and go with "Socialist" government.  A large government with control over most aspects of peoples lives (i.e., Venezuela, Cuba, China, et cetera).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure am glad you brought those three up.  Yes, they call themselves Socialist.  But they aren't.
> 
> Venezuela is  a Dictatorship that  masquerades as a Socialist state.
> Cuba is a Dictatorship that is also pretends to be a Socialist State.
> China is an Oligarchy that pretends to be a Socialist state.
> 
> In order to be a Socialist State unfettered and fair elections must be held and the will of the people must be help above all else.  None of the 3 you mentioned has that.  In fact, Cuba and China don't have elections for the common people at all.  And Venezuela tightly controls the elections so that only the "Leader" will win.  The only real Socialist Country I know of is Denmark and no one in Denmark claims to actually have a Socialist Country although they do fit the criteria all the way.  It seems these other "Fake" Socialist countries have given the name Socialism a really bad name.  The reason that these countries don't use what they really are is that if they did they could not stand in front of the "Oppressed" and make them think that things are going so well.  So they call their selves much nicer names and don't allow their subjects the ability to see any different.
> 
> Socialism is a very hard act to accomplish and only a handful in the world is doing it.  But it can't be done by countries the size of the US.  Socialism can't exist in large populations much like Democratic Governments can't either.  Both are wonderful thoughts but can't happen once you get past a room full of people.  So we use parts of them in our Government.  Any real successful government does this.  We should do the same for Capitalism.  We borrow from all three.  What you end up with is a Federal Republic.  But beware, it's a tight rope act.  Right now, we are heavily into leaning towards the Capitalism which also doesn't work in large populations.  In the past, we have also leaned too far in the Socialism way but we always go back to the center.  But we have NEVER been this far into one thing or the other like we are today.  The Total Collapse happens when you get too far away from the happy balance.  And we are quickly headed that way again.  Not to worry, with the system our FFs setup, the swing will bring it back again.
> 
> We need a bit of Socialism for some things.  We need a bit of Capitalism for other things and we need Democracy for others.  Just be very careful that we don't swing too far from the center like we are today.  And it ain't Socialism that is the enemy right now.  We need to get Corporations out of owning the Government.  You fight to do that and you would be surprised at how low what you fear from Socialism gets weaker when more people actually get to work and the need of crime goes down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To quote Vladimir Lenin:  "Democracy is essential for Socialism to exist."
> We are a Capitalist "Republic" and this is what we must stay.  If this nation becomes Socialist, I will take up arms against it.
Click to expand...


You honestly believe that Lenin believed what he said?  He said so the Rubes would believe him.  He didn't believe in Democracy or that every person had the right to vote.  He set up a system that was the end result was for world domination, nothing more.  It was a Oligarch Government where only Party Members in Good Standings had the right to vote.  All others served the Party.  There wasn't one bit of Democracy in his form of Marxism.  In fact, there was very little Communism nor Marxism in it as well.  It had more in common with the Tzar Ruling system than anything else.  In fact, the Romonofs were a far better ruler than the Lenins.  But Lenin was a better Bull Shit Artist.  

We were founded on Democratic Principles, not Capitalist principles.  When you have a Capilalist Governed Country you have a ruling class of Oligarchs and all others serve the masters.  We don't need Capitalism for Ruling purposes, we need it for economic purposes.  Without it, things get mess up real fast and a community can't grow.  But you really don't want it as a Ruling Class.  It works out real well if you are one of the Masters but not everyone can be a master.  

Under a government that is controlled by Capitalists only a Rube actually believes their vote counts.  When was the last time you actually got to pick the major candidates in either party?  A good case in point is how in hell did we get down to the choice of Trump V Clinton?  Satan V Lucifer.  There were hundreds of better choices available but we ended up having to choose between those two.  You don't even have a real voice in your House and Senate choices.  I was offered support to run for City Council just to see if I was cut out for it.  But along with it came the grooming by the party.  And that party was the Republican Party which I lean towards but am not part of.  In the end, I would be programmed in Party thinking and would be influenced by the Party where I would vote along Party Lines.  And it would be a small group of old white dudes in a back room that decides those policies.  This also applies to the Democrat Party.  And what is the driving factor of both?  Serving the Corporate Masters in the end.  We are screwed.


----------



## JBvM

Daryl Hunt said:


> I won't look at today.  I will look at the time around 1790.
> 
> *Militia Act of 1792*
> _Every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.
> _
> First we need to look at who was a Citizen in 1790s.  In the 1790s, ALL Blacks even free Blacks were prohibited from owning and carrying firearms.  All People even whites that would not swear allegiance to the newly formed United States were prohibited from owning or carrying fire arms.  Women were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms.  Bonded Slaves, even whites were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms of any kind.  It all pretty much boiled down that a Citizen was a Free White Male Land Owner deemed to be in good standing with the Existing Government both Stated and Federal Governments.  It's been estimated that only about 8% of the population from that time met the full requirement to own, possess and carry firearms legally.  Remember, more than half of the population of that time either supported the Crown or leaned heavily in that direction.  The Newly Formed Colonist Government did exactly what the British Government tried to do themselves.
> 
> There were two rebellions that made the Militia Act of 1792 to be written and adopted.  The Shays Rebellion of 1786-1787 and the Whiskey Rebellion 1791-1794.  While neither amounted to much, the founding fathers were scared to death that something else might come up that might endanger the newly formed Government so they adopted the 2nd Amendment as it was written since there was no Standing Army to prevent any decent resurrection from becoming successful.    It was left up to each state individually to provide the militias to prevent it from happening.  As long as the states agreed and didn't go to war with each other.
> 
> Using the original definition, if you don't own your House, Farm or Business and you don't completely and blindly support our current Government then are not a Citizen in Good Standings and will not be afforded the right to own, posses or carry any form of Firearms.  Oh, and you must be a Free White Male as well.


Hmmm.


----------

