# Would you be willing to accept this Second Amendment compromise?



## Pedro de San Patricio

The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.

What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?


----------



## Correll

NOpe.

Any attempt to raise the cost of gun ownership is a restriction on a important Right.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Not happening, we have you anti gun loons by the short hairs with the 2nd as it is


----------



## Pedro de San Patricio

Correll said:


> NOpe.
> 
> Any attempt to raise the cost of gun ownership is a restriction on a important Right.


If the whole point of the amendment is arming the militia, then shouldn't we be barring those incapable of entering the militia to have one? Think about the kind of person who couldn't even join a volunteer irregular military-lite.



SassyIrishLass said:


> Not happening, we have you anti gun loons by the short hairs with the 2nd as it is


I'm not anti-gun. I'm taking the Second Amendment at its word as to its meaning. It says that we can own guns because the militia needs to have guns. What I want is to make gun owners the militia and give them the regulation and training they need to pose more of a danger to foreign and domestic enemies than to themselves and innocent bystanders.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> NOpe.
> 
> Any attempt to raise the cost of gun ownership is a restriction on a important Right.
> 
> 
> 
> If the whole point of the amendment is arming the militia, then shouldn't we be barring those incapable of entering the militia to have one? Think about the kind of person who couldn't even join a volunteer irregular military-lite.
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not happening, we have you anti gun loons by the short hairs with the 2nd as it is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not anti-gun. I'm taking the Second Amendment at its word as to its meaning. It says that we can own guns because the militia needs to have guns. What I want is to make gun owners the militia and give them the regulation and training they need to pose more of a danger to foreign and domestic enemies than to themselves and innocent bystanders.
Click to expand...


You can do that without messing with the 2nd


----------



## JoeB131

SassyIrishLass said:


> Not happening, we have you anti gun loons by the short hairs with the 2nd as it is



Utnil the next time one of you loons shoots up a school or a church and people finally get fed up with your shit.


----------



## Pedro de San Patricio

SassyIrishLass said:


> You can do that without messing with the 2nd


We couldn't make those changes without "messing" with it. The way it's currently worded implies that every US citizen has an inalienable right to gun ownership. It is also vague as to the exact identity of the militia. That second bit is clear just from the vast numbers of differing opinions on the subject. I'd like to reword it to restrict the unfit (such as the violently mentally ill) from ownership explicitly, define the "well regulated militia" as the state defense force of each state, and require active membership in a local militia as a prerequisite for having one.

Again, I'm not anti-gun. I'm absolutely fine with you having one. I'm even fine with you walking around with it concealed in public. I just want you to pass a psychological screening and have a basic awareness and respect for the killing tool in your hand instilled into you before you're allowed to do so.


----------



## Correll

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> NOpe.
> 
> Any attempt to raise the cost of gun ownership is a restriction on a important Right.
> 
> 
> 
> If the whole point of the amendment is arming the militia, then shouldn't we be barring those incapable of entering the militia to have one? Think about the kind of person who couldn't even join a volunteer irregular military-lite.
Click to expand...


I am.

Old people, handicapped people, women who do not want to be part of a military force...

I have read too many accounts of people like that using guns to protect themselves to want to take away their guns.


----------



## PredFan

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.
> 
> What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?



No. There shall be no compromise on a Constitutional right.


----------



## Pedro de San Patricio

Correll said:


> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> NOpe.
> 
> Any attempt to raise the cost of gun ownership is a restriction on a important Right.
> 
> 
> 
> If the whole point of the amendment is arming the militia, then shouldn't we be barring those incapable of entering the militia to have one? Think about the kind of person who couldn't even join a volunteer irregular military-lite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am.
> 
> Old people, handicapped people, women who do not want to be part of a military force...
> 
> I have read too many accounts of people like that using guns to protect themselves to want to take away their guns.
Click to expand...

The elderly and handicapped would be subject to that, yeah. The point of the amendment is arming the militia for use by the state, according to the amendment itself. Not everyone falls under the militia. It's meant to be the citizens - originally men - of military age. Look into the Selective Service. Its requirements are a good guide.


----------



## Hugo Furst

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.
> 
> What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?




Nope.

 If you want to modify it, remove "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,"


----------



## Correll

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> NOpe.
> 
> Any attempt to raise the cost of gun ownership is a restriction on a important Right.
> 
> 
> 
> If the whole point of the amendment is arming the militia, then shouldn't we be barring those incapable of entering the militia to have one? Think about the kind of person who couldn't even join a volunteer irregular military-lite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am.
> 
> Old people, handicapped people, women who do not want to be part of a military force...
> 
> I have read too many accounts of people like that using guns to protect themselves to want to take away their guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The elderly and handicapped would be subject to that, yeah. The point of the amendment is arming the militia for use by the state, according to the amendment itself. Not everyone falls under the militia. It's meant to be the citizens - originally men - of military age. Look into the Selective Service. Its requirements are a good guide.
Click to expand...


I'm not willing to throw all those old people and handicapped people and women under the bus.

Why are you?


----------



## Hugo Furst

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> NOpe.
> 
> Any attempt to raise the cost of gun ownership is a restriction on a important Right.
> 
> 
> 
> If the whole point of the amendment is arming the militia, then shouldn't we be barring those incapable of entering the militia to have one? Think about the kind of person who couldn't even join a volunteer irregular military-lite.
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not happening, we have you anti gun loons by the short hairs with the 2nd as it is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not anti-gun. I'm taking the Second Amendment at its word as to its meaning. It says that we can own guns because the militia needs to have guns. What I want is to make gun owners the militia and give them the regulation and training they need to pose more of a danger to foreign and domestic enemies than to themselves and innocent bystanders.
Click to expand...





Pedro de San Patricio said:


> If the whole point of the amendment is arming the militia,



Nope, it's to give THE PEOPLE the right to keep and bear arms



Pedro de San Patricio said:


> It says that we can own guns because the militia needs to have guns.



Not what it says


----------



## USNavyVet

Part of the reason for the 2nde Amendment is to fight off a tyrannical government. If you're part of the government you're less likely to want to fight them off. So no.


----------



## Correll

You know the fact that they mention ONE reason to have the Right to Bear Arms, does not mean that it is the ONLY reason.

I am sure that the vast majority of the Founders supported allowing citizens guns for hunting, and protection from dangerous animals, even though it was not specifically mentioned in the Constitution.


----------



## Pedro de San Patricio

WillHaftawaite said:


> If you want to modify it, remove "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,"


The important part?



Correll said:


> I'm not willing to throw all those old people and handicapped people and women under the bus.
> 
> Why are you?


Jared Loughner didn't need a gun. James Holmes didn't need a gun. Adam Lanza didn't need a gun. I hope the reasons I'm totally fine with depriving people like them of having one before they go on a shooting spree would be obvious. Similarly, I don't really consider grampa with the wheelchair and the oxygen tank to be fit for service either.



USNavyVet said:


> Part of the reason for the 2nde Amendment is to fight off a tyrannical government. If you're part of the government you're less likely to want to fight them off. So no.





Correll said:


> You know the fact that they mention ONE reason to have the Right to Bear Arms, does not mean that it is the ONLY reason.
> I am sure that the vast majority of the Founders supported allowing citizens guns for hunting, and protection from dangerous animals, even though it was not specifically mentioned in the Constitution.


Fair points.


----------



## DarkFury

No


----------



## Pedro de San Patricio

DarkFury said:


> No


Care to give your reason?


----------



## Hugo Furst

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to modify it, remove "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,"
> 
> 
> 
> The important part?
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not willing to throw all those old people and handicapped people and women under the bus.
> 
> Why are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jared Loughner didn't need a gun. James Holmes didn't need a gun. Adam Lanza didn't need a gun. I hope the reasons I'm totally fine with depriving people like them of having one before they go on a shooting spree would be obvious. Similarly, I don't really consider grampa with the wheelchair and the oxygen tank to be fit for service either.
> 
> 
> 
> USNavyVet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Part of the reason for the 2nde Amendment is to fight off a tyrannical government. If you're part of the government you're less likely to want to fight them off. So no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know the fact that they mention ONE reason to have the Right to Bear Arms, does not mean that it is the ONLY reason.
> I am sure that the vast majority of the Founders supported allowing citizens guns for hunting, and protection from dangerous animals, even though it was not specifically mentioned in the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fair points.
Click to expand...




The LEAST important part.


The IMPORTANT part is giving the PEOPLE the right to keep and bear arms.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to modify it, remove "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,"
> 
> 
> 
> The important part?
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not willing to throw all those old people and handicapped people and women under the bus.
> 
> Why are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jared Loughner didn't need a gun. James Holmes didn't need a gun. Adam Lanza didn't need a gun. I hope the reasons I'm totally fine with depriving people like them of having one before they go on a shooting spree would be obvious. Similarly, I don't really consider grampa with the wheelchair and the oxygen tank to be fit for service either.
> 
> 
> 
> USNavyVet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Part of the reason for the 2nde Amendment is to fight off a tyrannical government. If you're part of the government you're less likely to want to fight them off. So no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know the fact that they mention ONE reason to have the Right to Bear Arms, does not mean that it is the ONLY reason.
> I am sure that the vast majority of the Founders supported allowing citizens guns for hunting, and protection from dangerous animals, even though it was not specifically mentioned in the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fair points.
Click to expand...


I'm sure this old timer was glad he had the right to bear arms....

*85-YEAR-OLD EL CERRITO RESIDENT SHOOTS ALLEGED BURGLAR IN THE HEAD*

*On September 2, an 85-year-old El Cerrito man saw suspicious movement in his backyard, retrieved his gun, and shot one of two suspects who had allegedly entered his home. The alleged burglar sustained a gunshot wound to the head.
According to KRON 4, the man was home alone around 11:15 a.m.,”when he spotted suspicious people in his backyard.” As he retrieved his gun, the suspects allegedly made entry into the home “by breaking a back door.”

Fearing his life was in danger, the resident opened fire, forcing the suspects to flee. He then called police. As officers were responding to the call, “officers located one of the suspects on Key Boulevard near the El Cerrito Del Norte BART station.” The alleged burglar attempted to escape, but police captured him and identified him as 34-year-old Shawn Mulberry.

85-Year-Old Shoots Alleged Burglar in the Head
*


----------



## Anathema

No. Any requirement to join a government organization or register the arms owned is a non-starter so far as I'm concerned. 

One of tge main points for owning firearms is to protect yourself from the Government; so why would I want to join a Government agency to get the Right to own arms?


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

JoeB131 said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not happening, we have you anti gun loons by the short hairs with the 2nd as it is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Utnil the next time one of you loons shoots up a school or a church and people finally get fed up with your shit.
Click to expand...


   We dont care if your fed up.
We're armed.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

HereWeGoAgain said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not happening, we have you anti gun loons by the short hairs with the 2nd as it is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Utnil the next time one of you loons shoots up a school or a church and people finally get fed up with your shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We dont care if your fed up.
> We're armed.
Click to expand...


The old fool Joe ignores the fact it's usually a left loon shooting up schools. Perhaps leftists should be banned from owing firearms


----------



## HereWeGoAgain




----------



## gipper

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.
> 
> What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?


Guns are not the problem.  The problem is too much centralized gov resulting in a dysfunctional culture.

So your solution is illogical.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> NOpe.
> 
> Any attempt to raise the cost of gun ownership is a restriction on a important Right.
> 
> 
> 
> If the whole point of the amendment is arming the militia, then shouldn't we be barring those incapable of entering the militia to have one? Think about the kind of person who couldn't even join a volunteer irregular military-lite.
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not happening, we have you anti gun loons by the short hairs with the 2nd as it is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not anti-gun. I'm taking the Second Amendment at its word as to its meaning. It says that we can own guns because the militia needs to have guns. What I want is to make gun owners the militia and give them the regulation and training they need to pose more of a danger to foreign and domestic enemies than to themselves and innocent bystanders.
Click to expand...

*
 then shouldn't we be barring those incapable of entering the militia to have one?
*
Nope.


----------



## Pedro de San Patricio

gipper said:


> So your solution is illogical.


You think the government causes people to create a dysfunctional culture? Surely it's the reverse?


----------



## JoeB131

Anathema said:


> No. Any requirement to join a government organization or register the arms owned is a non-starter so far as I'm concerned.
> 
> One of tge main points for owning firearms is to protect yourself from the Government; so why would I want to join a Government agency to get the Right to own arms?



Actually, anyone who tells me he needs guns to protect himself from government is crazy. 

You've got a gun. 

They've got tanks, and bombers, and drones, and missiles. 

32,000 gun deaths and 78,000 gun injuries every year doesn't justify humoring your fantasies.


----------



## Correll

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to modify it, remove "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,"
> 
> 
> 
> The important part?
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not willing to throw all those old people and handicapped people and women under the bus.
> 
> Why are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jared Loughner didn't need a gun. James Holmes didn't need a gun. Adam Lanza didn't need a gun. I hope the reasons I'm totally fine with depriving people like them of having one before they go on a shooting spree would be obvious. Similarly, I don't really consider grampa with the wheelchair and the oxygen tank to be fit for service either.
> 
> 
> 
> USNavyVet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Part of the reason for the 2nde Amendment is to fight off a tyrannical government. If you're part of the government you're less likely to want to fight them off. So no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know the fact that they mention ONE reason to have the Right to Bear Arms, does not mean that it is the ONLY reason.
> I am sure that the vast majority of the Founders supported allowing citizens guns for hunting, and protection from dangerous animals, even though it was not specifically mentioned in the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fair points.
Click to expand...



Grandpa in the wheelchair and on oxygen is a fine target for a cowardly robber. 

Grandpa in the wheelchair and on oxygen with a gun in the drawer next to him has a chance to defend himself.

I want grandpa to win, and the robber to lose.

Thank you for admitting that a Primary Reason does not preclude other reasons.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

JoeB131 said:


> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. Any requirement to join a government organization or register the arms owned is a non-starter so far as I'm concerned.
> 
> One of tge main points for owning firearms is to protect yourself from the Government; so why would I want to join a Government agency to get the Right to own arms?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, anyone who tells me he needs guns to protect himself from government is crazy.
> 
> You've got a gun.
> 
> They've got tanks, and bombers, and drones, and missiles.
> 
> 32,000 gun deaths and 78,000 gun injuries every year doesn't justify humoring your fantasies.
Click to expand...


  How many times does this have to get shot down before you stop bringing it up?


----------



## USNavyVet

JoeB131 said:


> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. Any requirement to join a government organization or register the arms owned is a non-starter so far as I'm concerned.
> 
> One of tge main points for owning firearms is to protect yourself from the Government; so why would I want to join a Government agency to get the Right to own arms?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, anyone who tells me he needs guns to protect himself from government is crazy.
> 
> You've got a gun.
> 
> They've got tanks, and bombers, and drones, and missiles.
> 
> 32,000 gun deaths and 78,000 gun injuries every year doesn't justify humoring your fantasies.
Click to expand...


You do realize that we beat the best army at the time, right? Or does history elude you? Nevermind.


----------



## 007

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.
> 
> What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?


No... _"... shall not be infringed."_


----------



## Anathema

JoeB131 said:


> Actually, anyone who tells me he needs guns to protect himself from government is crazy.
> 
> You've got a gun.
> 
> They've got tanks, and bombers, and drones, and missiles.
> 
> 32,000 gun deaths and 78,000 gun injuries every year doesn't justify humoring your fantasies.



Better to die on my feet than live on my knees.

How many of those deaths involve legal guns in the hands of legal gun owners (not including self defense) instead of criminal actions...... very few.


----------



## gipper

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> So your solution is illogical.
> 
> 
> 
> You think the government causes people to create a dysfunctional culture? Surely it's the reverse?
Click to expand...

Gov is the problem.  Research what it did to the black community since the Great Society.


----------



## JoeB131

SassyIrishLass said:


> The old fool Joe ignores the fact it's usually a left loon shooting up schools. Perhaps leftists should be banned from owing firearms



Fat Irish Sow, usually these guys are too far gone to have a political affiliation.  you think that Adam Lanza had a political party? Really? 

His mother was one of you Prepper nuts who thinks you need to be armed like the Zombies are coming.


----------



## JoeB131

Anathema said:


> Better to die on my feet than live on my knees.
> 
> How many of those deaths involve legal guns in the hands of legal gun owners (not including self defense) instead of criminal actions...... very few.



Actually, most of them. 2/3rds of htem are suicides.  about 1000 of them are accidents, and the rest are homicides,  often committed by people they know.


----------



## JoeB131

Correll said:


> Grandpa in the wheelchair and on oxygen is a fine target for a cowardly robber.
> 
> Grandpa in the wheelchair and on oxygen with a gun in the drawer next to him has a chance to defend himself.
> 
> I want grandpa to win, and the robber to lose.
> 
> Thank you for admitting that a Primary Reason does not preclude other reasons.



So little billy takes out the gun and shoots his little sister with Grandpa's gun, and that's okay with you?


----------



## Anathema

JoeB131 said:


> Actually, most of them. 2/3rds of htem are suicides.  about 1000 of them are accidents, and the rest are homicides,  often committed by people they know.



So 67% of them have nothing to do with the gun (they'd have found a different tool if the gun wasn't available)

1000 of them are criminal negligence issues.

The rest are homicides. Almost all of which are committed by people who are already criminals and with illegal guns.

Doesn't seem to me that much would change even if we made guns totally illegal.


----------



## Pogo

WillHaftawaite said:


> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> NOpe.
> 
> Any attempt to raise the cost of gun ownership is a restriction on a important Right.
> 
> 
> 
> If the whole point of the amendment is arming the militia, then shouldn't we be barring those incapable of entering the militia to have one? Think about the kind of person who couldn't even join a volunteer irregular military-lite.
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not happening, we have you anti gun loons by the short hairs with the 2nd as it is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not anti-gun. I'm taking the Second Amendment at its word as to its meaning. It says that we can own guns because the militia needs to have guns. What I want is to make gun owners the militia and give them the regulation and training they need to pose more of a danger to foreign and domestic enemies than to themselves and innocent bystanders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the whole point of the amendment is arming the militia,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, it's to give THE PEOPLE the right to keep and bear arms
> 
> 
> 
> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> It says that we can own guns because the militia needs to have guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not what it says
Click to expand...


Actually it *is* what it says.  "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" is what the dependent clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" DEPENDS on.  If that wasn't a dependent clause, it would have no reason to be written there.


----------



## RodISHI

no


----------



## Hugo Furst

Pogo said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> NOpe.
> 
> Any attempt to raise the cost of gun ownership is a restriction on a important Right.
> 
> 
> 
> If the whole point of the amendment is arming the militia, then shouldn't we be barring those incapable of entering the militia to have one? Think about the kind of person who couldn't even join a volunteer irregular military-lite.
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not happening, we have you anti gun loons by the short hairs with the 2nd as it is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not anti-gun. I'm taking the Second Amendment at its word as to its meaning. It says that we can own guns because the militia needs to have guns. What I want is to make gun owners the militia and give them the regulation and training they need to pose more of a danger to foreign and domestic enemies than to themselves and innocent bystanders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the whole point of the amendment is arming the militia,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, it's to give THE PEOPLE the right to keep and bear arms
> 
> 
> 
> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> It says that we can own guns because the militia needs to have guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not what it says
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually it *is* what it says.  "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" is what the dependent clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" DEPENDS on.  If that wasn't a dependent clause, it would have no reason to be written there.
Click to expand...





Pogo said:


> "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State"



Superfulous.


Even in those days, one didn't need to belong to a militia to own a firearm




Pogo said:


> "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"



The meat of the Amendment.

if it were only for those in the militia, it wouldn't state  "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", it would state  'the right of the MILITIA to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'


----------



## Correll

JoeB131 said:


> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. Any requirement to join a government organization or register the arms owned is a non-starter so far as I'm concerned.
> 
> One of tge main points for owning firearms is to protect yourself from the Government; so why would I want to join a Government agency to get the Right to own arms?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, anyone who tells me he needs guns to protect himself from government is crazy.
> 
> You've got a gun.
> 
> They've got tanks, and bombers, and drones, and missiles.
> 
> 32,000 gun deaths and 78,000 gun injuries every year doesn't justify humoring your fantasies.
Click to expand...


If you really cared about those deaths you wouldn't support policies that encourage illegitimacy, or importing the Third World.


----------



## jon_berzerk

nope forget it


----------



## Correll

Anathema said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, anyone who tells me he needs guns to protect himself from government is crazy.
> 
> You've got a gun.
> 
> They've got tanks, and bombers, and drones, and missiles.
> 
> 32,000 gun deaths and 78,000 gun injuries every year doesn't justify humoring your fantasies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Better to die on my feet than live on my knees.
> 
> How many of those deaths involve legal guns in the hands of legal gun owners (not including self defense) instead of criminal actions...... very few.
Click to expand...


Very, very few.


----------



## Pedro de San Patricio

Correll said:


> If you really cared about those deaths you wouldn't support policies that encourage illegitimacy, or importing the Third World.


Wut?


----------



## Pogo

WillHaftawaite said:


> Even in those days, one didn't need to belong to a militia to own a firearm



I'm not saying that, nor is the Amendment.  It's saying implicitly that the right of the people to bear arms _*within a militia *_shall not be infringed.  Doesn't exactly say freelancers can't be.




WillHaftawaite said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> NOpe.
> 
> Any attempt to raise the cost of gun ownership is a restriction on a important Right.
> 
> 
> 
> If the whole point of the amendment is arming the militia, then shouldn't we be barring those incapable of entering the militia to have one? Think about the kind of person who couldn't even join a volunteer irregular military-lite.
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not happening, we have you anti gun loons by the short hairs with the 2nd as it is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not anti-gun. I'm taking the Second Amendment at its word as to its meaning. It says that we can own guns because the militia needs to have guns. What I want is to make gun owners the militia and give them the regulation and training they need to pose more of a danger to foreign and domestic enemies than to themselves and innocent bystanders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the whole point of the amendment is arming the militia,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, it's to give THE PEOPLE the right to keep and bear arms
> 
> 
> 
> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> It says that we can own guns because the militia needs to have guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not what it says
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually it *is* what it says.  "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" is what the dependent clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" DEPENDS on.  If that wasn't a dependent clause, it would have no reason to be written there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Superfulous.
> 
> 
> Even in those days, one didn't need to belong to a militia to own a firearm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The meat of the Amendment.
> 
> if it were only for those in the militia, it wouldn't state  "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", it would state  'the right of the MILITIA to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'
Click to expand...


I agree that it's poorly written (vague) but --- why would you write a _superfluous _phrase into a Constitutional Amendment?  If it's not the basis of the dependent clause that follows, then what is its *function* sitting there?

And before you say it's a basis of its own reasoning --- none of the other Amendments contain such a basis.  Absent that, the only other function it can have is as a _limitation_ (and even if it is a basis, it _still_ serves as implied limitation).  You don't write superfluous clauses into a Constitution.


----------



## Hugo Furst

Pogo said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even in those days, one didn't need to belong to a militia to own a firearm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not saying that, nor is the Amendment.  It's saying implicitly that the right of the people to bear arms _*within a militia *_shall not be infringed.  Doesn't exactly say freelancers can't be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> NOpe.
> 
> Any attempt to raise the cost of gun ownership is a restriction on a important Right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the whole point of the amendment is arming the militia, then shouldn't we be barring those incapable of entering the militia to have one? Think about the kind of person who couldn't even join a volunteer irregular military-lite.
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not happening, we have you anti gun loons by the short hairs with the 2nd as it is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not anti-gun. I'm taking the Second Amendment at its word as to its meaning. It says that we can own guns because the militia needs to have guns. What I want is to make gun owners the militia and give them the regulation and training they need to pose more of a danger to foreign and domestic enemies than to themselves and innocent bystanders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the whole point of the amendment is arming the militia,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, it's to give THE PEOPLE the right to keep and bear arms
> 
> 
> 
> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> It says that we can own guns because the militia needs to have guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not what it says
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually it *is* what it says.  "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" is what the dependent clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" DEPENDS on.  If that wasn't a dependent clause, it would have no reason to be written there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Superfluous.
> 
> 
> Even in those days, one didn't need to belong to a militia to own a firearm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The meat of the Amendment.
> 
> if it were only for those in the militia, it wouldn't state  "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", it would state  'the right of the MILITIA to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree that it's poorly written (vague) but --- why would you write a _superfluous _phrase into a Constitutional Amendment?  If it's not the basis of the dependent clause that follows, then what is its *function* sitting there?
> 
> And before you say it's a basis of its own reasoning --- none of the other Amendments contain such a basis.  Absent that, the only other function it can have is as a _limitation_ (and even if it is a basis, it _still_ serves as implied limitation).  You don't write superfluous clauses into a Constitution.
Click to expand...




Pogo said:


> _*within a militia *_



within?

where did you get the idea the word 'within' is in the Amendment.

They gave the right to the PEOPLE, not the militia.

no other way to read it.


----------



## Pogo

WillHaftawaite said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even in those days, one didn't need to belong to a militia to own a firearm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not saying that, nor is the Amendment.  It's saying implicitly that the right of the people to bear arms _*within a militia *_shall not be infringed.  Doesn't exactly say freelancers can't be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the whole point of the amendment is arming the militia, then shouldn't we be barring those incapable of entering the militia to have one? Think about the kind of person who couldn't even join a volunteer irregular military-lite.
> 
> I'm not anti-gun. I'm taking the Second Amendment at its word as to its meaning. It says that we can own guns because the militia needs to have guns. What I want is to make gun owners the militia and give them the regulation and training they need to pose more of a danger to foreign and domestic enemies than to themselves and innocent bystanders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the whole point of the amendment is arming the militia,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, it's to give THE PEOPLE the right to keep and bear arms
> 
> 
> 
> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> It says that we can own guns because the militia needs to have guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not what it says
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually it *is* what it says.  "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" is what the dependent clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" DEPENDS on.  If that wasn't a dependent clause, it would have no reason to be written there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Superfluous.
> 
> 
> Even in those days, one didn't need to belong to a militia to own a firearm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The meat of the Amendment.
> 
> if it were only for those in the militia, it wouldn't state  "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", it would state  'the right of the MILITIA to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree that it's poorly written (vague) but --- why would you write a _superfluous _phrase into a Constitutional Amendment?  If it's not the basis of the dependent clause that follows, then what is its *function* sitting there?
> 
> And before you say it's a basis of its own reasoning --- none of the other Amendments contain such a basis.  Absent that, the only other function it can have is as a _limitation_ (and even if it is a basis, it _still_ serves as implied limitation).  You don't write superfluous clauses into a Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*within a militia *_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> within?
> 
> where did you get the idea the word 'within' is in the Amendment.
> 
> They gave the right to the PEOPLE, not the militia.
> 
> no other way to read it.
Click to expand...


Then answer the question -- what is the *function* of that leading clause?  Words don't just show up on their own; somebody put the phrase there.  For a reason.

If it means "people" in general --- then why would you even _mention _"militia", let alone a "well regulated" one?  Why don't you mention "postal carriers" or "blacksmiths"?

Aye, there's the rub.

This would mean "people in general":

Amendment 2: "The right of the People to bear Arms shall not be infringed".​
But that isn't what they wrote, is it?


----------



## Hugo Furst

Pogo said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even in those days, one didn't need to belong to a militia to own a firearm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not saying that, nor is the Amendment.  It's saying implicitly that the right of the people to bear arms _*within a militia *_shall not be infringed.  Doesn't exactly say freelancers can't be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, it's to give THE PEOPLE the right to keep and bear arms
> 
> Not what it says
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually it *is* what it says.  "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" is what the dependent clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" DEPENDS on.  If that wasn't a dependent clause, it would have no reason to be written there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Superfluous.
> 
> 
> Even in those days, one didn't need to belong to a militia to own a firearm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The meat of the Amendment.
> 
> if it were only for those in the militia, it wouldn't state  "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", it would state  'the right of the MILITIA to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree that it's poorly written (vague) but --- why would you write a _superfluous _phrase into a Constitutional Amendment?  If it's not the basis of the dependent clause that follows, then what is its *function* sitting there?
> 
> And before you say it's a basis of its own reasoning --- none of the other Amendments contain such a basis.  Absent that, the only other function it can have is as a _limitation_ (and even if it is a basis, it _still_ serves as implied limitation).  You don't write superfluous clauses into a Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*within a militia *_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> within?
> 
> where did you get the idea the word 'within' is in the Amendment.
> 
> They gave the right to the PEOPLE, not the militia.
> 
> no other way to read it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then answer the question -- what is the *function* of that leading clause?  Words don't just show up on their own; somebody put the phrase there.  For a reason.
> 
> If it means "people" in general --- then why would you even _mention _"militia", let alone a "well regulated" one?
> 
> Aye, there's the rub.
> 
> This would mean "people in general":
> 
> Amendment 2: "The right of the People to bear Arms shall not be infringed".
> 
> But that isn't what they wrote, is it?
Click to expand...



My point exactly, the phrase about the militia is no longer needed.


BUT, in those days, with no standing army, militias were necessary for a variety of reasons, and they realized that those reasons would no longer be an issue..

So they insured that the right of the people would have the right to keep and bear arms.

a right many did NOT have before coming to this country.


----------



## Pedro de San Patricio

WillHaftawaite said:


> within?
> 
> where did you get the idea the word 'within' is in the Amendment.
> 
> They gave the right to the PEOPLE, not the militia.
> 
> no other way to read it.


I feel like you might not understand what a militia is. The militia *are* the people. It's the able bodied civilian population that can be levied by the local government as a military force should the need arise. The reason I chose the state defense forces for the proposal specifically is that they serve only the local government. Their chain of command only goes up to the adjutant general and governor. They can't be federalized and have no federal authority in their chain of command. It's purely defensive in nature and conforms best to the meaning of the term at the time and the intent of the amendment.


----------



## Hugo Furst

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> within?
> 
> where did you get the idea the word 'within' is in the Amendment.
> 
> They gave the right to the PEOPLE, not the militia.
> 
> no other way to read it.
> 
> 
> 
> I feel like you might not understand what a militia is. The militia *are* the people. It's the able bodied civilian population that can be levied by the local government as a military force should the need arise. The reason I chose the state defense forces for the proposal specifically is that they serve only the local government. Their chain of command only goes up to the adjutant general and governor. They can't be federalized and have no federal authority in their chain of command. It's purely defensive in nature and conforms best to the meaning of the term at the time and the intent of the amendment.
Click to expand...



I'm well aware of what a 'militia' is.

and, per the Amendment, membership in a militia is NOT required for the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms.


----------



## Pedro de San Patricio

WillHaftawaite said:


> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> within?
> 
> where did you get the idea the word 'within' is in the Amendment.
> 
> They gave the right to the PEOPLE, not the militia.
> 
> no other way to read it.
> 
> 
> 
> I feel like you might not understand what a militia is. The militia *are* the people. It's the able bodied civilian population that can be levied by the local government as a military force should the need arise. The reason I chose the state defense forces for the proposal specifically is that they serve only the local government. Their chain of command only goes up to the adjutant general and governor. They can't be federalized and have no federal authority in their chain of command. It's purely defensive in nature and conforms best to the meaning of the term at the time and the intent of the amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm well aware of what a 'militia' is.
> 
> and, per the Amendment, membership in a militia is NOT required for the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms.
Click to expand...

You would see that I agree with you if you read the OP. The fact that it isn't is half of what the compromise we're discussing would be about. You want everyone to get to have one. The other side wants few to no one outside the active military and police to have one. I'm proposing a deal where you both get part of what you want that actually leans closer to you. Require that everyone who wants one register with their local defense force, where they can be given the training they need not to be a danger to themselves and me by professionals. Set the bar for registration low yet not so low as to be nonexistent. It's still technically an armed military force, and you don't want deathbed grampa or Crazy Eddie who lives under the bridge anywhere near one - especially when the Ruskies invade and you're depending on them to ensure your freedom and survival.


----------



## Correll

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you really cared about those deaths you wouldn't support policies that encourage illegitimacy, or importing the Third World.
> 
> 
> 
> Wut?
Click to expand...



Two policies that reversing would be an easier way to reduce crime.


----------



## Hugo Furst

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> within?
> 
> where did you get the idea the word 'within' is in the Amendment.
> 
> They gave the right to the PEOPLE, not the militia.
> 
> no other way to read it.
> 
> 
> 
> I feel like you might not understand what a militia is. The militia *are* the people. It's the able bodied civilian population that can be levied by the local government as a military force should the need arise. The reason I chose the state defense forces for the proposal specifically is that they serve only the local government. Their chain of command only goes up to the adjutant general and governor. They can't be federalized and have no federal authority in their chain of command. It's purely defensive in nature and conforms best to the meaning of the term at the time and the intent of the amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm well aware of what a 'militia' is.
> 
> and, per the Amendment, membership in a militia is NOT required for the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You would see that I agree with you if you read the OP. The fact that it isn't is half of what the compromise we're discussing would be about. You want everyone to get to have one. The other side wants few to no one outside the active military and police to have one. I'm proposing a deal where you both get part of what you want that actually leans closer to you. Require that everyone who wants one register with their local defense force, where they can be given the training they need not to be a danger to themselves and me by professionals. Set the bar for registration low yet not so low as to be nonexistent. It's still technically an armed military force, and you don't want deathbed grampa or Crazy Eddie who lives under the bridge anywhere near one - especially when the Ruskies invade and you're depending on them to ensure your freedom and survival.
Click to expand...


Not going to happen.

registering a gun is the first step in losing them.

Or did you miss where some hacker posted the addresses of all registered gun owners in NYC a couple of years ago.

The government is not the only ones interested in knowing who has firearms.

criminals would love to have a shopping list of armament to select from.

and as far as grandpa, grandpa probably knows more about firearms than soldiers on their first tour do.

Now, if you can figure a way for Crazy Eddie to be denied access to firearms, WITHOUT infringing on the rights of the rest, I'd love to hear it.


----------



## Pogo

WillHaftawaite said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even in those days, one didn't need to belong to a militia to own a firearm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not saying that, nor is the Amendment.  It's saying implicitly that the right of the people to bear arms _*within a militia *_shall not be infringed.  Doesn't exactly say freelancers can't be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it *is* what it says.  "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" is what the dependent clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" DEPENDS on.  If that wasn't a dependent clause, it would have no reason to be written there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Superfluous.
> 
> 
> Even in those days, one didn't need to belong to a militia to own a firearm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The meat of the Amendment.
> 
> if it were only for those in the militia, it wouldn't state  "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", it would state  'the right of the MILITIA to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree that it's poorly written (vague) but --- why would you write a _superfluous _phrase into a Constitutional Amendment?  If it's not the basis of the dependent clause that follows, then what is its *function* sitting there?
> 
> And before you say it's a basis of its own reasoning --- none of the other Amendments contain such a basis.  Absent that, the only other function it can have is as a _limitation_ (and even if it is a basis, it _still_ serves as implied limitation).  You don't write superfluous clauses into a Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*within a militia *_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> within?
> 
> where did you get the idea the word 'within' is in the Amendment.
> 
> They gave the right to the PEOPLE, not the militia.
> 
> no other way to read it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then answer the question -- what is the *function* of that leading clause?  Words don't just show up on their own; somebody put the phrase there.  For a reason.
> 
> If it means "people" in general --- then why would you even _mention _"militia", let alone a "well regulated" one?
> 
> Aye, there's the rub.
> 
> This would mean "people in general":
> 
> Amendment 2: "The right of the People to bear Arms shall not be infringed".
> 
> But that isn't what they wrote, is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My point exactly, the phrase about the militia is no longer needed.
> 
> 
> BUT, in those days, with no standing army, militias were necessary for a variety of reasons, and they realized that those reasons would no longer be an issue..
> 
> So they insured that the right of the people would have the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> a right many did NOT have before coming to this country.
Click to expand...


You didn't address the question at all.
If you don't mean to limit to a militia --- then there's no reason to single out and specify such.  Fact.
But they did.  Another fact.


----------



## gipper

Pogo said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even in those days, one didn't need to belong to a militia to own a firearm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not saying that, nor is the Amendment.  It's saying implicitly that the right of the people to bear arms _*within a militia *_shall not be infringed.  Doesn't exactly say freelancers can't be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> NOpe.
> 
> Any attempt to raise the cost of gun ownership is a restriction on a important Right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the whole point of the amendment is arming the militia, then shouldn't we be barring those incapable of entering the militia to have one? Think about the kind of person who couldn't even join a volunteer irregular military-lite.
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not happening, we have you anti gun loons by the short hairs with the 2nd as it is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not anti-gun. I'm taking the Second Amendment at its word as to its meaning. It says that we can own guns because the militia needs to have guns. What I want is to make gun owners the militia and give them the regulation and training they need to pose more of a danger to foreign and domestic enemies than to themselves and innocent bystanders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the whole point of the amendment is arming the militia,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, it's to give THE PEOPLE the right to keep and bear arms
> 
> 
> 
> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> It says that we can own guns because the militia needs to have guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not what it says
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually it *is* what it says.  "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" is what the dependent clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" DEPENDS on.  If that wasn't a dependent clause, it would have no reason to be written there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Superfulous.
> 
> 
> Even in those days, one didn't need to belong to a militia to own a firearm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The meat of the Amendment.
> 
> if it were only for those in the militia, it wouldn't state  "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", it would state  'the right of the MILITIA to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree that it's poorly written (vague) but --- why would you write a _superfluous _phrase into a Constitutional Amendment?  If it's not the basis of the dependent clause that follows, then what is its *function* sitting there?
> 
> And before you say it's a basis of its own reasoning --- none of the other Amendments contain such a basis.  Absent that, the only other function it can have is as a _limitation_ (and even if it is a basis, it _still_ serves as implied limitation).  You don't write superfluous clauses into a Constitution.
Click to expand...

The RIGHT to keep and bear arms is NOT granted or given by government.  That right is a natural right...a God given right.

What the amendment does is to PREVENT stinking tyrannical government (sorry for the redundancies) from infringing on the NATURAL right to keep and bear arms.

This is but one exceptional thing about America...exceptional in the sense that nearly ALL prior governments restricted the right so they could impose tyranny...which is why the Left whats to restrict the right today...to impose tyranny....history repeats because people fail to learn from it.


----------



## Correll

gipper said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even in those days, one didn't need to belong to a militia to own a firearm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not saying that, nor is the Amendment.  It's saying implicitly that the right of the people to bear arms _*within a militia *_shall not be infringed.  Doesn't exactly say freelancers can't be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the whole point of the amendment is arming the militia, then shouldn't we be barring those incapable of entering the militia to have one? Think about the kind of person who couldn't even join a volunteer irregular military-lite.
> 
> I'm not anti-gun. I'm taking the Second Amendment at its word as to its meaning. It says that we can own guns because the militia needs to have guns. What I want is to make gun owners the militia and give them the regulation and training they need to pose more of a danger to foreign and domestic enemies than to themselves and innocent bystanders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the whole point of the amendment is arming the militia,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, it's to give THE PEOPLE the right to keep and bear arms
> 
> 
> 
> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> It says that we can own guns because the militia needs to have guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not what it says
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually it *is* what it says.  "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" is what the dependent clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" DEPENDS on.  If that wasn't a dependent clause, it would have no reason to be written there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Superfulous.
> 
> 
> Even in those days, one didn't need to belong to a militia to own a firearm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The meat of the Amendment.
> 
> if it were only for those in the militia, it wouldn't state  "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", it would state  'the right of the MILITIA to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree that it's poorly written (vague) but --- why would you write a _superfluous _phrase into a Constitutional Amendment?  If it's not the basis of the dependent clause that follows, then what is its *function* sitting there?
> 
> And before you say it's a basis of its own reasoning --- none of the other Amendments contain such a basis.  Absent that, the only other function it can have is as a _limitation_ (and even if it is a basis, it _still_ serves as implied limitation).  You don't write superfluous clauses into a Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The RIGHT to keep and bear arms is NOT granted or given by government.  That right is a natural right...a God given right.
> 
> What the amendment does is to PREVENT stinking tyrannical government (sorry for the redundancies) from infringing on the NATURAL right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> This is but one exceptional thing about America...exceptional in the sense that nearly ALL prior governments restricted the right so they could impose tyranny...which is why the Left whats to restrict the right today...to impose tyranny....history repeats because people fail to learn from it.
Click to expand...


Good point about Rights being God Granted, or Inherent.


----------



## Pogo

gipper said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even in those days, one didn't need to belong to a militia to own a firearm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not saying that, nor is the Amendment.  It's saying implicitly that the right of the people to bear arms _*within a militia *_shall not be infringed.  Doesn't exactly say freelancers can't be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the whole point of the amendment is arming the militia, then shouldn't we be barring those incapable of entering the militia to have one? Think about the kind of person who couldn't even join a volunteer irregular military-lite.
> 
> I'm not anti-gun. I'm taking the Second Amendment at its word as to its meaning. It says that we can own guns because the militia needs to have guns. What I want is to make gun owners the militia and give them the regulation and training they need to pose more of a danger to foreign and domestic enemies than to themselves and innocent bystanders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the whole point of the amendment is arming the militia,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, it's to give THE PEOPLE the right to keep and bear arms
> 
> 
> 
> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> It says that we can own guns because the militia needs to have guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not what it says
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually it *is* what it says.  "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" is what the dependent clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" DEPENDS on.  If that wasn't a dependent clause, it would have no reason to be written there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Superfulous.
> 
> 
> Even in those days, one didn't need to belong to a militia to own a firearm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The meat of the Amendment.
> 
> if it were only for those in the militia, it wouldn't state  "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", it would state  'the right of the MILITIA to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree that it's poorly written (vague) but --- why would you write a _superfluous _phrase into a Constitutional Amendment?  If it's not the basis of the dependent clause that follows, then what is its *function* sitting there?
> 
> And before you say it's a basis of its own reasoning --- none of the other Amendments contain such a basis.  Absent that, the only other function it can have is as a _limitation_ (and even if it is a basis, it _still_ serves as implied limitation).  You don't write superfluous clauses into a Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The RIGHT to keep and bear arms is NOT granted or given by government.  That right is a natural right...a God given right.
Click to expand...


Since "God" is a man-made invention, if we accept this premise then no rights exist.  Except those granted by man.  And voilà, right back where we started.  Lather, rinse, repeat.  Deflection fails.

The question remains standing untouched -- what is the FUNCTION of the initial phrase?


----------



## gipper

Pogo said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even in those days, one didn't need to belong to a militia to own a firearm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not saying that, nor is the Amendment.  It's saying implicitly that the right of the people to bear arms _*within a militia *_shall not be infringed.  Doesn't exactly say freelancers can't be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, it's to give THE PEOPLE the right to keep and bear arms
> 
> Not what it says
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually it *is* what it says.  "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" is what the dependent clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" DEPENDS on.  If that wasn't a dependent clause, it would have no reason to be written there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Superfulous.
> 
> 
> Even in those days, one didn't need to belong to a militia to own a firearm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The meat of the Amendment.
> 
> if it were only for those in the militia, it wouldn't state  "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", it would state  'the right of the MILITIA to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree that it's poorly written (vague) but --- why would you write a _superfluous _phrase into a Constitutional Amendment?  If it's not the basis of the dependent clause that follows, then what is its *function* sitting there?
> 
> And before you say it's a basis of its own reasoning --- none of the other Amendments contain such a basis.  Absent that, the only other function it can have is as a _limitation_ (and even if it is a basis, it _still_ serves as implied limitation).  You don't write superfluous clauses into a Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The RIGHT to keep and bear arms is NOT granted or given by government.  That right is a natural right...a God given right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since "God" is a man-made invention, if we accept this premise then no rights exist.  Except those granted by man.  And voilà, right back where we started.  Lather, rinse, repeat.  Deflection fails.
> 
> The question remains standing untouched -- what is the FUNCTION of the initial phrase?
Click to expand...

You sure God is a man-made invention?  Prove it.

Would you prefer having your rights given to you by man or by God?  If you prefer by man, I feel sorry for you because you are most ignorant.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.
> 
> What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?


Actually there's no need to 'compromise.'

The Second Amendment enshrines an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to the right of lawful self-defense, unrelated to militia service – meaning such a prerequisite to possessing a firearm would be un-Constitutional.

Private citizens are perfectly capable of exercising their Second Amendment right absent some sort of formal 'training,' and that can be applied to carrying a concealed firearm as well.

When government seeks to place restrictions or limitations on a Constitutional right, such measures must be rationally based, supported by objective, documented evidence, and pursue a proper legislative end.

Firearm regulatory policy that meets the above requirements will likely pass Constitutional muster – those that don't, won't.

For example, to require a firearm owner to receive 'training' as a condition to exercising his Second Amendment right is in no way rational, that absent 'training' a gun owner 'might' have an 'accident' is not consistent with fundamental Constitutional jurisprudence – that a citizen 'might' abuse his rights is not justification to manifest an undue burden to him exercising that right; there is no evidence that 'training' will have the desired effect of preventing 'accidents,' and consequently such a measure pursues no proper legislative end, rendering it un-Constitutional.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> NOpe.
> 
> Any attempt to raise the cost of gun ownership is a restriction on a important Right.
> 
> 
> 
> If the whole point of the amendment is arming the militia, then shouldn't we be barring those incapable of entering the militia to have one? Think about the kind of person who couldn't even join a volunteer irregular military-lite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am.
> 
> Old people, handicapped people, women who do not want to be part of a military force...
> 
> I have read too many accounts of people like that using guns to protect themselves to want to take away their guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The elderly and handicapped would be subject to that, yeah. The point of the amendment is arming the militia for use by the state, according to the amendment itself. Not everyone falls under the militia. It's meant to be the citizens - originally men - of military age. Look into the Selective Service. Its requirements are a good guide.
Click to expand...

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law – including the Second Amendment.

_Heller/McDonald _is that current jurisprudence, as determined by the Supreme Court, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review and Articles III and VI of the Founding Document to issue rulings as to what the Constitution means, where the Constitution codifies an individual right to possess a firearm unrelated to militia service, meaning the elderly and handicapped have a right to possess a firearm.


----------



## Hugo Furst

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> NOpe.
> 
> Any attempt to raise the cost of gun ownership is a restriction on a important Right.
> 
> 
> 
> If the whole point of the amendment is arming the militia, then shouldn't we be barring those incapable of entering the militia to have one? Think about the kind of person who couldn't even join a volunteer irregular military-lite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am.
> 
> Old people, handicapped people, women who do not want to be part of a military force...
> 
> I have read too many accounts of people like that using guns to protect themselves to want to take away their guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The elderly and handicapped would be subject to that, yeah. The point of the amendment is arming the militia for use by the state, according to the amendment itself. Not everyone falls under the militia. It's meant to be the citizens - originally men - of military age. Look into the Selective Service. Its requirements are a good guide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law – including the Second Amendment.
> 
> _Heller/McDonald _is that current jurisprudence, as determined by the Supreme Court, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review and Articles III and VI of the Founding Document to issue rulings as to what the Constitution means, where the Constitution codifies an individual right to possess a firearm unrelated to militia service, meaning the elderly and handicapped have a right to possess a firearm.
Click to expand...



Finally found something we can agree on.


----------



## Iceweasel

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.
> 
> What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?


The problem is you get your world view from cartoons and comedy shows. First, the basis of your argument is wrong. The second also says 'the right of the people'. How that gets constantly filtered from the reptilian leftist brain is an amazing thing. 

Plus, it is no longer a right if we need state permission and a certificate. It would then be like driving, a privilege if you do xyz.

Finally, the shooting aren't happening from ccw holders, most shooting are illegally gotten guns or carried and a class isn't going to stop someone from mass murder. Pretty sure they already know that's illegal.


----------



## Pogo

gipper said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even in those days, one didn't need to belong to a militia to own a firearm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not saying that, nor is the Amendment.  It's saying implicitly that the right of the people to bear arms _*within a militia *_shall not be infringed.  Doesn't exactly say freelancers can't be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it *is* what it says.  "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" is what the dependent clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" DEPENDS on.  If that wasn't a dependent clause, it would have no reason to be written there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Superfulous.
> 
> 
> Even in those days, one didn't need to belong to a militia to own a firearm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The meat of the Amendment.
> 
> if it were only for those in the militia, it wouldn't state  "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", it would state  'the right of the MILITIA to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree that it's poorly written (vague) but --- why would you write a _superfluous _phrase into a Constitutional Amendment?  If it's not the basis of the dependent clause that follows, then what is its *function* sitting there?
> 
> And before you say it's a basis of its own reasoning --- none of the other Amendments contain such a basis.  Absent that, the only other function it can have is as a _limitation_ (and even if it is a basis, it _still_ serves as implied limitation).  You don't write superfluous clauses into a Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The RIGHT to keep and bear arms is NOT granted or given by government.  That right is a natural right...a God given right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since "God" is a man-made invention, if we accept this premise then no rights exist.  Except those granted by man.  And voilà, right back where we started.  Lather, rinse, repeat.  Deflection fails.
> 
> The question remains standing untouched -- what is the FUNCTION of the initial phrase?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You sure God is a man-made invention?  Prove it.
> 
> Would you prefer having your rights given to you by man or by God?  If you prefer by man, I feel sorry for you because you are most ignorant.
Click to expand...


Prove it isn't.  That is, prove the positive, that "God" invented itself or exists in any way.
Show me some reference -- any reference anywhere --- that wasn't written by man.

....... 

Exactly.
Now tell me all about this "ignorance".


----------



## gipper

Pogo said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even in those days, one didn't need to belong to a militia to own a firearm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not saying that, nor is the Amendment.  It's saying implicitly that the right of the people to bear arms _*within a militia *_shall not be infringed.  Doesn't exactly say freelancers can't be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Superfulous.
> 
> 
> Even in those days, one didn't need to belong to a militia to own a firearm
> 
> 
> The meat of the Amendment.
> 
> if it were only for those in the militia, it wouldn't state  "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", it would state  'the right of the MILITIA to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree that it's poorly written (vague) but --- why would you write a _superfluous _phrase into a Constitutional Amendment?  If it's not the basis of the dependent clause that follows, then what is its *function* sitting there?
> 
> And before you say it's a basis of its own reasoning --- none of the other Amendments contain such a basis.  Absent that, the only other function it can have is as a _limitation_ (and even if it is a basis, it _still_ serves as implied limitation).  You don't write superfluous clauses into a Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The RIGHT to keep and bear arms is NOT granted or given by government.  That right is a natural right...a God given right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since "God" is a man-made invention, if we accept this premise then no rights exist.  Except those granted by man.  And voilà, right back where we started.  Lather, rinse, repeat.  Deflection fails.
> 
> The question remains standing untouched -- what is the FUNCTION of the initial phrase?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You sure God is a man-made invention?  Prove it.
> 
> Would you prefer having your rights given to you by man or by God?  If you prefer by man, I feel sorry for you because you are most ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove it isn't.  That is, prove the positive, that "God" invented itself or exists in any way.
> Show me some reference -- any reference anywhere --- that wasn't written by man.
> 
> .......
> 
> Exactly.
> Now tell me all about this "ignorance".
Click to expand...

Prove God does not exist.

Prove that the Bible was entirely written by man.


----------



## Pogo

gipper said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not saying that, nor is the Amendment.  It's saying implicitly that the right of the people to bear arms _*within a militia *_shall not be infringed.  Doesn't exactly say freelancers can't be.
> 
> 
> I agree that it's poorly written (vague) but --- why would you write a _superfluous _phrase into a Constitutional Amendment?  If it's not the basis of the dependent clause that follows, then what is its *function* sitting there?
> 
> And before you say it's a basis of its own reasoning --- none of the other Amendments contain such a basis.  Absent that, the only other function it can have is as a _limitation_ (and even if it is a basis, it _still_ serves as implied limitation).  You don't write superfluous clauses into a Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> The RIGHT to keep and bear arms is NOT granted or given by government.  That right is a natural right...a God given right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since "God" is a man-made invention, if we accept this premise then no rights exist.  Except those granted by man.  And voilà, right back where we started.  Lather, rinse, repeat.  Deflection fails.
> 
> The question remains standing untouched -- what is the FUNCTION of the initial phrase?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You sure God is a man-made invention?  Prove it.
> 
> Would you prefer having your rights given to you by man or by God?  If you prefer by man, I feel sorry for you because you are most ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove it isn't.  That is, prove the positive, that "God" invented itself or exists in any way.
> Show me some reference -- any reference anywhere --- that wasn't written by man.
> 
> .......
> 
> Exactly.
> Now tell me all about this "ignorance".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove God does not exist.
> 
> Prove that the Bible was entirely written by man.
Click to expand...


I don't need to -- it's a negative.  YOU would need to prove the positive.
That's never been done in human history, so rotsa ruck with that.

Your original point was, and we quote:
"The RIGHT to keep and bear arms is NOT granted or given by government. That right is a natural right...a God given right."

Onus is all yours.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

gipper said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even in those days, one didn't need to belong to a militia to own a firearm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not saying that, nor is the Amendment.  It's saying implicitly that the right of the people to bear arms _*within a militia *_shall not be infringed.  Doesn't exactly say freelancers can't be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it *is* what it says.  "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" is what the dependent clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" DEPENDS on.  If that wasn't a dependent clause, it would have no reason to be written there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Superfulous.
> 
> 
> Even in those days, one didn't need to belong to a militia to own a firearm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The meat of the Amendment.
> 
> if it were only for those in the militia, it wouldn't state  "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", it would state  'the right of the MILITIA to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree that it's poorly written (vague) but --- why would you write a _superfluous _phrase into a Constitutional Amendment?  If it's not the basis of the dependent clause that follows, then what is its *function* sitting there?
> 
> And before you say it's a basis of its own reasoning --- none of the other Amendments contain such a basis.  Absent that, the only other function it can have is as a _limitation_ (and even if it is a basis, it _still_ serves as implied limitation).  You don't write superfluous clauses into a Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The RIGHT to keep and bear arms is NOT granted or given by government.  That right is a natural right...a God given right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since "God" is a man-made invention, if we accept this premise then no rights exist.  Except those granted by man.  And voilà, right back where we started.  Lather, rinse, repeat.  Deflection fails.
> 
> The question remains standing untouched -- what is the FUNCTION of the initial phrase?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You sure God is a man-made invention?  Prove it.
> 
> Would you prefer having your rights given to you by man or by God?  If you prefer by man, I feel sorry for you because you are most ignorant.
Click to expand...

There is no 'god' as perceived by theists, where religion and later 'gods' were created by men.

But this has nothing to do with our inalienable rights.

Our inalienable rights manifest as a consequence of our humanity, as a consequence of our ability to reason, think, and be self-aware; our inalienable rights explain why when one is born in the United States – a jurisdiction which acknowledges and codifies its citizens' inalienable rights – he is a citizen of the United States regardless who his parents are, the inalienable right of citizenship that, like our other inalienable rights, can be neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man.

And if government seeks to limit or restrict those rights, the state is held to a high standard of proof, where the burden of proof rests solely with the state to justify limiting or restricting citizens' rights.

Indeed, that our inalienable rights are guaranteed and recognized because of our humanity, they are infinitely more secure than rights 'guaranteed' by a deity or religious dogma created by man.


----------



## Wry Catcher

PredFan said:


> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.
> 
> What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. There shall be no compromise on a Constitutional right.
Click to expand...


So you support the 14th, 15th (you oppose efforts by some states to suppress the vote), the 16th (income tax), the 17th (direct election of Senators), the 19th (again, you oppose efforts by some states to suppress the vote), the 24th and the 26th (once again you oppose voter suppression) Amendments to the COTUS?

And you dare to call yourself a Conservative.


----------



## PredFan

Wry Catcher said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.
> 
> What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. There shall be no compromise on a Constitutional right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you support the 14th, 15th (you oppose efforts by some states to suppress the vote), the 16th (income tax), the 17th (direct election of Senators), the 19th (again, you oppose efforts by some states to suppress the vote), the 24th and the 26th (once again you oppose voter suppression) Amendments to the COTUS?
> 
> And you dare to call yourself a Conservative.
Click to expand...


Constitutional rights moron. The 16th and 17th are not rights. Know the difference idiot.


----------



## Wry Catcher

PredFan said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.
> 
> What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. There shall be no compromise on a Constitutional right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you support the 14th, 15th (you oppose efforts by some states to suppress the vote), the 16th (income tax), the 17th (direct election of Senators), the 19th (again, you oppose efforts by some states to suppress the vote), the 24th and the 26th (once again you oppose voter suppression) Amendments to the COTUS?
> 
> And you dare to call yourself a Conservative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Constitutional rights moron. The 16th and 17th are not rights. Know the difference idiot.
Click to expand...


True.  Yet, you made a claim:  "There shall be no compromise on a Constitutional right"; and I made an observation:  "And you dare to call yourself a Conservative" which you ignored and deflected to a personal attack.  Thus we can conclude you're a hypocrite as well as an asshole.


----------



## PredFan

Wry Catcher said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.
> 
> What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. There shall be no compromise on a Constitutional right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you support the 14th, 15th (you oppose efforts by some states to suppress the vote), the 16th (income tax), the 17th (direct election of Senators), the 19th (again, you oppose efforts by some states to suppress the vote), the 24th and the 26th (once again you oppose voter suppression) Amendments to the COTUS?
> 
> And you dare to call yourself a Conservative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Constitutional rights moron. The 16th and 17th are not rights. Know the difference idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True.  Yet, you made a claim:  "There shall be no compromise on a Constitutional right"; and I made an observation:  "And you dare to call yourself a Conservative" which you ignored and deflected to a personal attack.  Thus we can conclude you're a hypocrite as well as an asshole.
Click to expand...


Shut up moron, I'm a conservative and a libertarian, there is no doubting that and the rantings of a partisan hack liberal do nothing to change that. There is no compromise on a constitutional right. Period. Go play in the street retard.


----------



## Wry Catcher

PredFan said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.
> 
> What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. There shall be no compromise on a Constitutional right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you support the 14th, 15th (you oppose efforts by some states to suppress the vote), the 16th (income tax), the 17th (direct election of Senators), the 19th (again, you oppose efforts by some states to suppress the vote), the 24th and the 26th (once again you oppose voter suppression) Amendments to the COTUS?
> 
> And you dare to call yourself a Conservative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Constitutional rights moron. The 16th and 17th are not rights. Know the difference idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True.  Yet, you made a claim:  "There shall be no compromise on a Constitutional right"; and I made an observation:  "And you dare to call yourself a Conservative" which you ignored and deflected to a personal attack.  Thus we can conclude you're a hypocrite as well as an asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shut up moron, I'm a conservative and a libertarian, there is no doubting that and the rantings of a partisan hack liberal do nothing to change that. There is no compromise on a constitutional right. Period. Go play in the street retard.
Click to expand...


The lady protests too much, methinks.   Being a conservative and a libertarian means you're an idealist, sans pragmatism with a stick up your ass.


----------



## JoeB131

USNavyVet said:


> You do realize that we beat the best army at the time, right? Or does history elude you? Nevermind.



Really? Did the British army have tanks and drones and bombers?   

oh, by the way. The only reason the Founding Slave Rapists won is because the French helped htem. But never mind. 



Anathema said:


> So 67% of them have nothing to do with the gun (they'd have found a different tool if the gun wasn't available)
> 
> 1000 of them are criminal negligence issues.
> 
> The rest are homicides. Almost all of which are committed by people who are already criminals and with illegal guns.
> 
> Doesn't seem to me that much would change even if we made guns totally illegal.



Not true- you eliminate a method of suicide, suicides decline. 

And most homicides happen between people who know each other. 
Which is why have thousands of homicides and other industrial democracies only have hundreds.


----------



## JoeB131

Correll said:


> f you really cared about those deaths you wouldn't support policies that encourage illegitimacy, or importing the Third World.



Guy, gun murder victims are just as likely to come from your White trash trailer park in the south than a ghetto.


----------



## JoeB131

gipper said:


> The RIGHT to keep and bear arms is NOT granted or given by government. That right is a natural right...a God given right.



What if there is no God?  



gipper said:


> What the amendment does is to PREVENT stinking tyrannical government (sorry for the redundancies) from infringing on the NATURAL right to keep and bear arms.



Except that never happens.  Usually when a government becomes tyrannical, it's with the help of armed people who've gotten tired of democracy, not the other way around. 



gipper said:


> This is but one exceptional thing about America...exceptional in the sense that nearly ALL prior governments restricted the right so they could impose tyranny...which is why the Left whats to restrict the right today...to impose tyranny....history repeats because people fail to learn from it.



America isn't exceptional. Countries with widespread gun ownership still ended up with dictatorships.


----------



## JoeB131

gipper said:


> Prove God does not exist.
> 
> Prove that the Bible was entirely written by man.



That's an easy one.  The bible says the world was flat.  

God would know it wasn't, if he existed.


----------



## gipper

Da


JoeB131 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The RIGHT to keep and bear arms is NOT granted or given by government. That right is a natural right...a God given right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What if there is no God?
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the amendment does is to PREVENT stinking tyrannical government (sorry for the redundancies) from infringing on the NATURAL right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that never happens.  Usually when a government becomes tyrannical, it's with the help of armed people who've gotten tired of democracy, not the other way around.
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is but one exceptional thing about America...exceptional in the sense that nearly ALL prior governments restricted the right so they could impose tyranny...which is why the Left whats to restrict the right today...to impose tyranny....history repeats because people fail to learn from it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> America isn't exceptional. Countries with widespread gun ownership still ended up with dictatorships.
Click to expand...

Damn Joey... You have no clue...please go back to dem underground.


----------



## Granny

We don't need to mess around with the 2nd Amendment, period. As already stated above, we all have a right to bear arms. The way things are going in this country these days we may all have to get guns whether we want them or not. The illegal (underground) sales of guns is a problem that needs to be addressed.  The whining that "guns kill people" is ridiculous - guns don't just jump out of a drawer, a gun safe or other place, load themselves and shoot themselves at will.  People with ill will do all of that.  Same principle applies to kitchen knives, screwdrivers, lead pipes or anything else ... there's a person up to no good guiding the instrument of choice to bring harm to another person.

Additionally, use of a militia by the state can be a bad thing if the state should happen to want to bring its own citizens under control.  Read a few history books.


----------



## JoeB131

gipper said:


> Da
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The RIGHT to keep and bear arms is NOT granted or given by government. That right is a natural right...a God given right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What if there is no God?
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the amendment does is to PREVENT stinking tyrannical government (sorry for the redundancies) from infringing on the NATURAL right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that never happens.  Usually when a government becomes tyrannical, it's with the help of armed people who've gotten tired of democracy, not the other way around.
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is but one exceptional thing about America...exceptional in the sense that nearly ALL prior governments restricted the right so they could impose tyranny...which is why the Left whats to restrict the right today...to impose tyranny....history repeats because people fail to learn from it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> America isn't exceptional. Countries with widespread gun ownership still ended up with dictatorships.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn Joey... You have no clue...please go back to dem underground.
Click to expand...


Duly noted you couldn't refute any point made.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Granny said:


> We don't need to mess around with the 2nd Amendment, period. As already stated above, we all have a right to bear arms. The way things are going in this country these days we may all have to get guns whether we want them or not. The illegal (underground) sales of guns is a problem that needs to be addressed.  The whining that "guns kill people" is ridiculous - guns don't just jump out of a drawer, a gun safe or other place, load themselves and shoot themselves at will.  People with ill will do all of that.  Same principle applies to kitchen knives, screwdrivers, lead pipes or anything else ... there's a person up to no good guiding the instrument of choice to bring harm to another person.
> 
> Additionally, use of a militia by the state can be a bad thing if the state should happen to want to bring its own citizens under control.  Read a few history books.



How many people have been killed by someone with a kitchen knife, a screw driver or a lead pipe from a distance of 20 feet?


----------



## Granny

You miss the point - no weapon - and just about anything can be a weapon - at any distance just jumps up and acts of its own volition. Somebody has to be wielding the weapon.  A pissed off housewife could throw a damned frying pan from 20 feet and kill somebody if the thing hit just right.


----------



## Pedro de San Patricio

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The Second Amendment enshrines an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to the right of lawful self-defense, unrelated to militia service – meaning such a prerequisite to possessing a firearm would be un-Constitutional.


It currently would be unconstitutional because it says "the people" when talking about allowing the militia to keep arms. This is because we've drifted away from the original intended meaning both socially and judicially. What I'm proposing is an amendment to make it constitutional. This is the totally constitutionally valid way of changing the document.



C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Private citizens are perfectly capable of exercising their Second Amendment right absent some sort of formal 'training,' and that can be applied to carrying a concealed firearm as well.


Currently they are, yes. This is not okay. To understand why, imagine that you're walking down the street when a guy pulls out a gun and starts firing indiscriminately. Another guy, thinking he's a super badass ultrahero, pulls out his gun, aims at the killer, and accidentally hits multiple bystanders before being shot in the face by his target. This has happened before. It would be less likely to happen if he actually had any idea what the fuck he was doing. A good way to ensure that would be to give him standardized, high quality training for the scenarios he wants to be prepared to resolve. The issue isn't concealed carry. It's keeping concealed carrying people from posing more of a danger to you and me than to violent criminals.



C_Clayton_Jones said:


> When government seeks to place restrictions or limitations on a Constitutional right, such measures must be rationally based, supported by objective, documented evidence, and pursue a proper legislative end.
> 
> Firearm regulatory policy that meets the above requirements will likely pass Constitutional muster – those that don't, won't.


What documented evidence do you need? I would like this to pursue a proper legislative end of passing an amendment rewriting the Second Amendment for clarification in a way that keeps both sides happy. Conservatives can keep their guns. Liberals have less reason to fear armed psychopaths every time they go outside.




C_Clayton_Jones said:


> For example, to require a firearm owner to receive 'training' as a condition to exercising his Second Amendment right is in no way rational, that absent 'training' a gun owner 'might' have an 'accident' is not consistent with fundamental Constitutional jurisprudence – that a citizen 'might' abuse his rights is not justification to manifest an undue burden to him exercising that right; there is no evidence that 'training' will have the desired effect of preventing 'accidents,' and consequently such a measure pursues no proper legislative end, rendering it un-Constitutional.


You don't think there's evidence that military training makes people more proficient marksmen?



Granny said:


> You miss the point - no weapon - and just about anything can be a weapon - at any distance just jumps up and acts of its own volition. Somebody has to be wielding the weapon.  A pissed off housewife could throw a damned frying pan from 20 feet and kill somebody if the thing hit just right.


This is very true. There both the gun trained on innocent people and the gun trained on the former are being wielded by people. If we're going to kill the first person - which is not what I would prefer but what conservatives and the gun lobby seem to want - then at least make sure the first shot by megahero hits him and not a random kid twenty feet to the left.



Iceweasel said:


> The problem is you get your world view from cartoons and comedy shows.


What the fuck? Who said anything about cartoons?



Iceweasel said:


> First, the basis of your argument is wrong. The second also says 'the right of the people'. How that gets constantly filtered from the reptilian leftist brain is an amazing thing.


I'm reading the full text and accepting that it means what it says it means. I quoted it in the OP if you ever wonder what it actually says.



Iceweasel said:


> Plus, it is no longer a right if we need state permission and a certificate. It would then be like driving, a privilege if you do xyz.


You would need to enlist into your state's militia, swear to defend your state in the case of foreign invasion, and learn when and how to shoot. That's about it. I can understand if you're afraid to be pressed into service against foreign and domestic enemies should the need arise. I'm sure many others are not.



Iceweasel said:


> Additionally, use of a militia by the state can be a bad thing if the state should happen to want to bring its own citizens under control.  Read a few history books.


Okay. So let's say Wisconsin decides to declare martial law and use its SDF to crack down on its people. Do you really think the federal government is just going to sit back and allow a governor to declare himself an independent dictator?


----------



## JoeB131

Granny said:


> You miss the point - no weapon - and just about anything can be a weapon - at any distance just jumps up and acts of its own volition. Somebody has to be wielding the weapon. A pissed off housewife could throw a damned frying pan from 20 feet and kill somebody if the thing hit just right.



We have 32,000 gun deaths a year.  

I think we have considerably less deaths by Frying Pan.


----------



## Hugo Furst

Preventable causes of death - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Correll

JoeB131 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> f you really cared about those deaths you wouldn't support policies that encourage illegitimacy, or importing the Third World.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, gun murder victims are just as likely to come from your White trash trailer park in the south than a ghetto.
Click to expand...


Link please.


----------



## gipper

Pogo said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The RIGHT to keep and bear arms is NOT granted or given by government.  That right is a natural right...a God given right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since "God" is a man-made invention, if we accept this premise then no rights exist.  Except those granted by man.  And voilà, right back where we started.  Lather, rinse, repeat.  Deflection fails.
> 
> The question remains standing untouched -- what is the FUNCTION of the initial phrase?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You sure God is a man-made invention?  Prove it.
> 
> Would you prefer having your rights given to you by man or by God?  If you prefer by man, I feel sorry for you because you are most ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove it isn't.  That is, prove the positive, that "God" invented itself or exists in any way.
> Show me some reference -- any reference anywhere --- that wasn't written by man.
> 
> .......
> 
> Exactly.
> Now tell me all about this "ignorance".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove God does not exist.
> 
> Prove that the Bible was entirely written by man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't need to -- it's a negative.  YOU would need to prove the positive.
> That's never been done in human history, so rotsa ruck with that.
> 
> Your original point was, and we quote:
> "The RIGHT to keep and bear arms is NOT granted or given by government. That right is a natural right...a God given right."
> 
> Onus is all yours.
Click to expand...

You made the claim that God does not exist.  Of course, you can't prove He does not exist.  So, why have you made an unprovable claim?  Are you stupid?


----------



## Correll

JoeB131 said:


> Granny said:
> 
> 
> 
> You miss the point - no weapon - and just about anything can be a weapon - at any distance just jumps up and acts of its own volition. Somebody has to be wielding the weapon. A pissed off housewife could throw a damned frying pan from 20 feet and kill somebody if the thing hit just right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have 32,000 gun deaths a year.
> 
> I think we have considerably less deaths by Frying Pan.
Click to expand...


Do you believe that poverty is a major factor is causing crime?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

GIPPER SAID: 

"What the amendment does is to PREVENT stinking tyrannical government (sorry for the redundancies) from infringing on the NATURAL right to keep and bear arms."

Nonsense.

The Second Amendment doesn't 'trump' the First, it has nothing to do with preventing 'the government' from becoming 'tyrannical,' nor does the Second Amendment authorize the people to 'overthrow' the government through force of arms just because a given minority perceives it as 'tyrannical.'

The people have the First Amendment right to petition the government for a redressof grievances through either the political or judicial process – not by armed insurrection.

What are the criteria of 'tyrannical,' what is the legal and Constitutional tripwire that 'authorizes' armed rebellion, taking from the people their right to change government by other means – the fact is there is none, as this was not the Framers' intent for the Amendment.

The Second Amendment enshrines an individual right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with militia service – it safeguards the right of citizens to engage in lawful self-defense, prohibiting government overreach with regard to the regulation of firearms – it is not a license for mob rule.


----------



## Pogo

gipper said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since "God" is a man-made invention, if we accept this premise then no rights exist.  Except those granted by man.  And voilà, right back where we started.  Lather, rinse, repeat.  Deflection fails.
> 
> The question remains standing untouched -- what is the FUNCTION of the initial phrase?
> 
> 
> 
> You sure God is a man-made invention?  Prove it.
> 
> Would you prefer having your rights given to you by man or by God?  If you prefer by man, I feel sorry for you because you are most ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove it isn't.  That is, prove the positive, that "God" invented itself or exists in any way.
> Show me some reference -- any reference anywhere --- that wasn't written by man.
> 
> .......
> 
> Exactly.
> Now tell me all about this "ignorance".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove God does not exist.
> 
> Prove that the Bible was entirely written by man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't need to -- it's a negative.  YOU would need to prove the positive.
> That's never been done in human history, so rotsa ruck with that.
> 
> Your original point was, and we quote:
> "The RIGHT to keep and bear arms is NOT granted or given by government. That right is a natural right...a God given right."
> 
> Onus is all yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You made the claim that God does not exist.  Of course, you can't prove He does not exist.  So, why have you made an unprovable claim?  Are you stupid?
Click to expand...


I dunno, are you illiterate?  I made the claim that "God" was invented by man, therefore rights cannot come from "God" -- which was YOUR claim, which you can't prove.

Just as if you order a pizza and the delivery driver arrives in a Toyota, it is not then logical to conclude that "pizza comes from Toyota".


----------



## Correll

Even DURING the Enlightenment, in consideration of the delicate sensibilities of the atheist among us, the concept of God Given Rights have included the often explicitly stated corollary of "Inherent Rights".

The debate on God is irrelevant to the debate on whether our Rights are OURS by Right, or Granted to US by the All Powerful State.


----------



## Iceweasel

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is you get your world view from cartoons and comedy shows.
> 
> 
> 
> What the fuck? Who said anything about cartoons?
Click to expand...

I just did. And you fucked up some quotes there, some of those attributed to me was made by somebody else. I was making fun of your juvenile comprehension of what's going on. Sort of, but I haven't ruled out cartoons.

I don't wonder, I posted 'the right of the people' since you obviously missed it. The people isn't the militia, that's why they used different words.

What are you babbling about? You aren't making any sense. I explained why your idea removes it from being a right to permission by the state.


----------



## Granny

Correll said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Granny said:
> 
> 
> 
> You miss the point - no weapon - and just about anything can be a weapon - at any distance just jumps up and acts of its own volition. Somebody has to be wielding the weapon. A pissed off housewife could throw a damned frying pan from 20 feet and kill somebody if the thing hit just right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have 32,000 gun deaths a year.
> 
> I think we have considerably less deaths by Frying Pan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you believe that poverty is a major factor is causing crime?
Click to expand...


Poverty and drugs - yes.  But here's the thing - people have choices in life - they can choose to walk the straight and narrow, study hard, start at the bottom of the ladder and prove themselves worthy of promotion, etc. OR they can choose to get involved with the wrong group of peers to hang with, go further into gangs, be angry at their lot in life and go to guns, drugs and other crimes. Sadly, all it takes is a perceived wrong, just an inadvertent bumping into someone while walking down the street, to set some people off and payback ends up with somebody dead.


----------



## Correll

Granny said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Granny said:
> 
> 
> 
> You miss the point - no weapon - and just about anything can be a weapon - at any distance just jumps up and acts of its own volition. Somebody has to be wielding the weapon. A pissed off housewife could throw a damned frying pan from 20 feet and kill somebody if the thing hit just right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have 32,000 gun deaths a year.
> 
> I think we have considerably less deaths by Frying Pan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you believe that poverty is a major factor is causing crime?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Poverty and drugs - yes.  But here's the thing - people have choices in life - they can choose to walk the straight and narrow, study hard, start at the bottom of the ladder and prove themselves worthy of promotion, etc. OR they can choose to get involved with the wrong group of peers to hang with, go further into gangs, be angry at their lot in life and go to guns, drugs and other crimes. Sadly, all it takes is a perceived wrong, just an inadvertent bumping into someone while walking down the street, to set some people off and payback ends up with somebody dead.
Click to expand...


I agree.

It is just interesting that libs love to blame poverty for crime. 

Except when it is "gun crime". And suddenly it is the gun.


----------



## Granny

Sometimes making the right choices in life makes life a lot better for the individual making the choices.  I've definitely made some mistakes in my time but I've made good choices as well.  I don't have money and I really don't care how much money and "good stuff" the other guy has.  I came into what I have honestly, I have a roof over my head, food, and most of all good health.  My kids turned out good and are self supporting ... so life is good.


----------



## Pogo

Granny said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Granny said:
> 
> 
> 
> You miss the point - no weapon - and just about anything can be a weapon - at any distance just jumps up and acts of its own volition. Somebody has to be wielding the weapon. A pissed off housewife could throw a damned frying pan from 20 feet and kill somebody if the thing hit just right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have 32,000 gun deaths a year.
> 
> I think we have considerably less deaths by Frying Pan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you believe that poverty is a major factor is causing crime?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Poverty and drugs - yes.  But here's the thing - people have choices in life - they can choose to walk the straight and narrow, study hard, start at the bottom of the ladder and prove themselves worthy of promotion, etc. OR they can choose to get involved with the wrong group of peers to hang with, go further into gangs, be angry at their lot in life and go to guns, drugs and other crimes. Sadly, all it takes is a perceived wrong, just an inadvertent bumping into someone while walking down the street, to set some people off and payback ends up with somebody dead.
Click to expand...


Everybody gets the same choices -- not everybody gets the same opportunities or circumstances though.  Sometimes the "wrong" group of peers might be the course that is more real-world practical and/or more secure.  It isn't as simple as "is this a right or a left turn".  

The old philosopher Yogi Berra put it best: "when you see a fork in the road --- take it".


----------



## PredFan

Wry Catcher said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. There shall be no compromise on a Constitutional right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you support the 14th, 15th (you oppose efforts by some states to suppress the vote), the 16th (income tax), the 17th (direct election of Senators), the 19th (again, you oppose efforts by some states to suppress the vote), the 24th and the 26th (once again you oppose voter suppression) Amendments to the COTUS?
> 
> And you dare to call yourself a Conservative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Constitutional rights moron. The 16th and 17th are not rights. Know the difference idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True.  Yet, you made a claim:  "There shall be no compromise on a Constitutional right"; and I made an observation:  "And you dare to call yourself a Conservative" which you ignored and deflected to a personal attack.  Thus we can conclude you're a hypocrite as well as an asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shut up moron, I'm a conservative and a libertarian, there is no doubting that and the rantings of a partisan hack liberal do nothing to change that. There is no compromise on a constitutional right. Period. Go play in the street retard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The lady protests too much, methinks.   Being a conservative and a libertarian means you're an idealist, sans pragmatism with a stick up your ass.
Click to expand...


Ha ha. Whatever loser.


----------



## hortysir

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.
> 
> What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?


How does one go about "compromising" with a Right that clearly says "shall not be infringed"?


----------



## Wry Catcher

hortysir said:


> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.
> 
> What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?
> 
> 
> 
> How does one go about "compromising" with a Right that clearly says "shall not be infringed"?
Click to expand...


Really, so I can own any "arm" I please?  There are no restrictions on any weapon I might have the desire to own?  Who says?  Did Scalia issue an executive order?


----------



## hortysir

Wry Catcher said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.
> 
> What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?
> 
> 
> 
> How does one go about "compromising" with a Right that clearly says "shall not be infringed"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really, so I can own any "arm" I please?  There are no restrictions on any weapon I might have the desire to own?  Who says?  Did Scalia issue an executive order?
Click to expand...

Personally, I see no reason why not.

When and where did restrictions start?

Why hasn't private ownership, which used to be equally to the government, kept up?
Why are we kept from protecting ourselves from a tyrannical government?(not saying this one is, but things can change)


----------



## HenryBHough

Idea:

Why not just make all killing of people who don't want to be killed illegal.

Oh wait, it already is!

Then whydefuk are people still doing it?  Don't they know it's illegal?  Do we need another law?  How about passing another copy fo the first one?  Would you understand that better if it's repeated?  How many repetitions?


----------



## Wry Catcher

hortysir said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.
> 
> What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?
> 
> 
> 
> How does one go about "compromising" with a Right that clearly says "shall not be infringed"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really, so I can own any "arm" I please?  There are no restrictions on any weapon I might have the desire to own?  Who says?  Did Scalia issue an executive order?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Personally, I see no reason why not.
> 
> When and where did restrictions start?
> 
> Why hasn't private ownership, which used to be equally to the government, kept up?
> Why are we kept from protecting ourselves from a tyrannical government?(not saying this one is, but things can change)
Click to expand...


LOL, taking your last point first, how well did David Koresh do against ATF?  Imagine yourself standing up to the US Military with air support.

In response to your first point, would you really be okay with Eric Harris, and Dylan Klebold; Seung-Hui Cho; Nidal Malik Hasan; Jared Loughner; James Holmes or Adam Lanza shopping for any of the weapons avialable to our military?


----------



## hortysir

Wry Catcher said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.
> 
> What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?
> 
> 
> 
> How does one go about "compromising" with a Right that clearly says "shall not be infringed"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really, so I can own any "arm" I please?  There are no restrictions on any weapon I might have the desire to own?  Who says?  Did Scalia issue an executive order?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Personally, I see no reason why not.
> 
> When and where did restrictions start?
> 
> Why hasn't private ownership, which used to be equally to the government, kept up?
> Why are we kept from protecting ourselves from a tyrannical government?(not saying this one is, but things can change)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, taking your last point first, how well did David Koresh do against ATF?  Imagine yourself standing up to the US Military with air support.
> 
> In response to your first point, would you really be okay with Eric Harris, and Dylan Klebold; Seung-Hui Cho; Nidal Malik Hasan; Jared Loughner; James Holmes or Adam Lanza shopping for any of the weapons avialable to our military?
Click to expand...

There will always be extremes.

My first question was a legitimate one, though.
When DID the government start assuring that it's better armed than its citizens?

I mean, that was the original intent of the 2A.....to protect ourselves from our government.
They are supposed to fear us, not the other way around


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.
> 
> What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?



  Anyone notice that any time a wrong-winger wants us to “compromise” with regard to the rights that the Second Amendment affirms, that what it really means is that honest, law-abiding citizens only have more obstacles put between them and their ability to exercise these rights, while getting nothing positive in return?

  It is long past time for Americans to stop “compromising” with anti-Constitutional scumbags, and to start taking back what is rightfully ourrs.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> The way it's currently worded implies that every US citizen has an inalienable right to gun ownership.



  It does not imply any such thing.  It flat-out states it, in the strongest and clearest language found anywhere in the Constitution.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

WillHaftawaite said:


> Nope, it's to give *recognize that* THE PEOPLE *have* the right to keep and bear arms *and to prohibit government from infringing this right*.



  Fixed it for you.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Correll said:


> You know the fact that they mention ONE reason to have the Right to Bear Arms, does not mean that it is the ONLY reason.
> 
> I am sure that the vast majority of the Founders supported allowing citizens guns for hunting, and protection from dangerous animals, even though it was not specifically mentioned in the Constitution.



  They would certainly have taken those uses as a given.  Their purpose in mentioning the need for a militia, I think, was to address what they saw as the most likely reason that government might have for trying to violate this right.


----------



## DarkFury

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> DarkFury said:
> 
> 
> 
> No
> 
> 
> 
> Care to give your reason?
Click to expand...

*This countries freedom was won by a gun. This country will KEEP it's freedom because of the gun.*


----------



## Manonthestreet




----------



## DarkFury




----------



## Hugo Furst

Bob Blaylock said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, it's to give *recognize that* THE PEOPLE *have* the right to keep and bear arms *and to prohibit government from infringing this right*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fixed it for you.
Click to expand...



Didn't need fixed


----------



## Bob Blaylock

WillHaftawaite said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, it's to give *recognize that* THE PEOPLE *have* the right to keep and bear arms *and to prohibit government from infringing this right*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fixed it for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't need fixed
Click to expand...


  Yes, it did.

  As you originally wrote it, your post stated that the second Amendment *GIVES* us the right to keep and bear arms.  It doesn't give us anything.  What it does, what it was intended to do, is to put in writing, as part of this nation's highest law, the recognition of a right that the great men who founded this country considered all of us to already have, and to protect this right from infringement.


----------



## Hugo Furst

Bob Blaylock said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, it's to give *recognize that* THE PEOPLE *have* the right to keep and bear arms *and to prohibit government from infringing this right*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fixed it for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't need fixed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it did.
> 
> As you originally wrote it, your post stated that the second Amendment *GIVES* us the right to keep and bear arms.  It doesn't give us anything.  What it does, what it was intended to do, is to put in writing, as part of this nation's highest law, the recognition of a right that the great men who founded this country considered all of us to already have,and to protect this right from infringement.
Click to expand...



Go away, little boy....


change someone elses posts


----------



## SAYIT

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> Again, I'm not anti-gun. I'm absolutely fine with you having one. I'm even fine with you walking around with it concealed in public. I just want you to pass a psychological screening and have a basic awareness and respect for the killing tool in your hand instilled into you before you're allowed to do so.



Yeah ... so how do gun-control laws restrict flaming loons from getting them in a country that specifically enshrines the right to own guns? The loons can always get them.


----------



## JoeB131

DarkFury said:


> This countries freedom was won by a gun. This country will KEEP it's freedom because of the gun.



Guy, you can cling to your gun and your bible and think you are free, but you are really not.


----------



## hortysir

JoeB131 said:


> DarkFury said:
> 
> 
> 
> This countries freedom was won by a gun. This country will KEEP it's freedom because of the gun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, you can cling to your gun and your bible and think you are free, but you are really not.
Click to expand...

Yes, I really am.

It might be your wet dream to be a ward of your Nanny state but don't project your fantasy on others


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.
> 
> What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?



Counter proposal: To own a firearm, nevermind carry it concealed or not, you must graduate Gunsite Academy or similar level firearms training course. A few rounds into a paper target doesn't cut it. My grandma literally could do that taking her to the range. But I wouldn't trust her with much beyond the .22 she rented.


----------



## JoeB131

hortysir said:


> Yes, I really am.
> 
> It might be your wet dream to be a ward of your Nanny state but don't project your fantasy on others



It might be your wet dream to hope some day to live in anarchy, but don't project your fantasy on others.


----------



## hortysir

JoeB131 said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I really am.
> 
> It might be your wet dream to be a ward of your Nanny state but don't project your fantasy on others
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It might be your wet dream to hope some day to live in anarchy, but don't project your fantasy on others.
Click to expand...

While smaller government does not equal anarchy ALL government does equal tyranny


----------



## Rotagilla

JoeB131 said:


> DarkFury said:
> 
> 
> 
> This countries freedom was won by a gun. This country will KEEP it's freedom because of the gun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, you can cling to your gun and your bible and think you are free, but you are really not.
Click to expand...

link?
source?


----------



## JoeB131

hortysir said:


> While smaller government does not equal anarchy ALL government does equal tyranny



People who make statements like this need help.


----------



## Pogo

DarkFury said:


> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DarkFury said:
> 
> 
> 
> No
> 
> 
> 
> Care to give your reason?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *This countries freedom was won by a gun. This country will KEEP it's freedom because of the gun.*
Click to expand...


Because -- this just in -- contrary to popular belief, guns don't shoot bullets.  They shoot Freedoms.
So every time a thug shoots a bank teller or a cop shoots a guy in the back, hey all they're doing is making the lucky recipient more "free".  Works in wars too.


----------



## Pedro de San Patricio

hortysir said:


> While smaller government does not equal anarchy ALL government does equal tyranny


Government is a good thing. It enables a group of people to organize labor and resources effectively, mediate conflicts in better and more fair ways than "the one still alive was right after all", and protect themselves from internal and external threats. Do you really want to get rid of all of that just so you won't have to be beholden to any sort of laws or standards of behavior?


----------



## Bob Blaylock

JoeB131 said:


> It might be your wet dream to hope some day to live in anarchy, but don't project your fantasy on others.



  Isn't it funny that you openly advocate violating the highest law of the nation, and then dare to suggest that those who want this law to be strictly obeyed are the ones who favor _“anarchy”_?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not happening, we have you anti gun loons by the short hairs with the 2nd as it is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Utnil the next time one of you loons shoots up a school or a church and people finally get fed up with your shit.
Click to expand...


Fuck off, Komrade


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> While smaller government does not equal anarchy ALL government does equal tyranny
> 
> 
> 
> Government is a good thing. It enables a group of people to organize labor and resources effectively, mediate conflicts in better and more fair ways than "the one still alive was right after all", and protect themselves from internal and external threats. Do you really want to get rid of all of that just so you won't have to be beholden to any sort of laws or standards of behavior?
Click to expand...


----------



## JoeB131

Bob Blaylock said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It might be your wet dream to hope some day to live in anarchy, but don't project your fantasy on others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't it funny that you openly advocate violating the highest law of the nation, and then dare to suggest that those who want this law to be strictly obeyed are the ones who favor _“anarchy”_?
Click to expand...


I don't consider the Founding Slave Rapist's inability to write a militia amendment clearly to be the "highest law of the nation".  

No other country has the kind of anarchy we have with gun ownership.


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> [



Fwanky, Gun Laws in Nazi Germany were more permissive than they are in Germany today, and more liberal than they were under the Wiemar Republic that proceeded it.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

JoeB131 said:


> I don't consider the Founding Slave Rapist's inability to write a militia amendment clearly to be the "highest law of the nation".
> 
> No other country has the kind of anarchy we have with gun ownership.



  It doesn't matter whether you recognize it as such.  The fact remains, that the Constitution is our highest law, and its status as such does not depend in the least bit on whether you recognize it, or agree with it.  And of course, you continue to engage in the hypocritical folly of crying “anarcy” at those of us who recognize the law and wish for it to be obeyed, while expressing your own abject contempt for the law.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

JoeB131 said:


> Fwanky, Gun Laws in Nazi Germany were more permissive than they are in Germany today, and more liberal than they were under the Wiemar Republic that proceeded it.



  Right.  They only restricted certain groups from possessing arms.  Jews, for example, homosexuals, Gypsies, and others deemed “undesirable”.  In the same way, and for the same reason, that this nation's earliest gun control laws were aimed specifically at blacks; and even to this day, are primarily aimed at those deemed “undesirable” by those who consider themselves to be the ruling elite.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fwanky, Gun Laws in Nazi Germany were more permissive than they are in Germany today, and more liberal than they were under the Wiemar Republic that proceeded it.
Click to expand...


Right. Hitler only disarmed the Jews. You'd love that, you Nazi fuckwad


----------



## JoeB131

Bob Blaylock said:


> It doesn't matter whether you recognize it as such. The fact remains, that the Constitution is our highest law, and its status as such does not depend in the least bit on whether you recognize it, or agree with it. And of course, you continue to engage in the hypocritical folly of crying “anarcy” at those of us who recognize the law and wish for it to be obeyed, while expressing your own abject contempt for the law.



Guy, the problem is, it's a matter of interpretation, and for MOST of our history, the Second Amendment was about militias, not firearms.  

All it takes is ONE SUPREME COURT judge to flip, and guess what, it's about militias again. 



Bob Blaylock said:


> Right. They only restricted certain groups from possessing arms. Jews, for example, homosexuals, Gypsies, and others deemed “undesirable”. In the same way, and for the same reason, that this nation's earliest gun control laws were aimed specifically at blacks; and even to this day, are primarily aimed at those deemed “undesirable” by those who consider themselves to be the ruling elite.



Guy, please don't try to pass yourself off as a civil libertarian, you look silly doing it. 

Point was, your average German had guns.  The "undesirables" as you say in Germany were less than 1% of the population.  So a society with 99% of the population able to own guns, and VERY FEW of them made any attempt to resist the Nazis or overthrow Hitler or stop the holocaust from happening.  In fact, the reason why Germany has stricter gun control laws today is some of those Germans took their guns and tried to shoot allied soldiers putting the moves on their _Fraulein_.  

The Allies confiscated most of the guns after that shit.


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> Right. Hitler only disarmed the Jews. You'd love that, you Nazi fuckwad



There were less than 500,000 Jews in Germany before the war out of a population of 80 million.  

Point was, most Germans could own guns if they wanted them, and none of those Freedom Loving Germans decided to use their guns to resist the government, even after it was REALLY CLEAR they were going to lose the war.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right. Hitler only disarmed the Jews. You'd love that, you Nazi [JOEB131]wad
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There were less than 500,000 Jews in Germany before the war out of a population of 80 million.
> 
> Point was, most Germans could own guns if they wanted them, and none of those Freedom Loving Germans decided to use their guns to resist the government, even after it was REALLY CLEAR they were going to lose the war.
Click to expand...


  So, because the Jews were such a small minority, it was perfectly OK for Germany to deny them the same basic rights that they most other Germans were allowed to enjoy?  Starting, of course, with the right to bear arms, but we all know that that it didn't end there.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> NOpe.
> 
> Any attempt to raise the cost of gun ownership is a restriction on a important Right.
> 
> 
> 
> If the whole point of the amendment is arming the militia, then shouldn't we be barring those incapable of entering the militia to have one? Think about the kind of person who couldn't even join a volunteer irregular military-lite.
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not happening, we have you anti gun loons by the short hairs with the 2nd as it is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not anti-gun. I'm taking the Second Amendment at its word as to its meaning. It says that we can own guns because the militia needs to have guns. What I want is to make gun owners the militia and give them the regulation and training they need to pose more of a danger to foreign and domestic enemies than to themselves and innocent bystanders.
Click to expand...

Actually the 2nd does NOT stipulate that one must belong to a Militia. That is simply A reason to be armed. English professor already broke the sentence down for dummies, the part about the militia is not a restriction on the main body of the text..


----------



## Pedro de San Patricio

Bob Blaylock said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't consider the Founding Slave Rapist's inability to write a militia amendment clearly to be the "highest law of the nation".
> 
> No other country has the kind of anarchy we have with gun ownership.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter whether you recognize it as such.  The fact remains, that the Constitution is our highest law, and its status as such does not depend in the least bit on whether you recognize it, or agree with it.  And of course, you continue to engage in the hypocritical folly of crying “anarcy” at those of us who recognize the law and wish for it to be obeyed, while expressing your own abject contempt for the law.
Click to expand...

Nobody is talking about not recognizing the Constitution. We're talking about an amendment, which is the Constitutional way to change the document. We've done it before. It's not exactly a new thing.



CrusaderFrank said:


> Right. Hitler only disarmed the Jews. You'd love that, you Nazi fuckwad


Wanting tools made specifically for killing to have some sort of regulation makes you antisemitic? Doesn't that argument itself have antisemitic implications?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

You want an amendment? Get Congress to agree then get 37 States to approve, good luck on that.


----------



## CremeBrulee

Basic training is a long ass waiting period.  Worse still, if your MOS requires OSUT.


----------



## Pedro de San Patricio

RetiredGySgt said:


> You want an amendment? Get Congress to agree then get 37 States to approve, good luck on that.


An amendment was the entire point of this thread, and is even in the title, so...


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right. Hitler only disarmed the Jews. You'd love that, you Nazi fuckwad
> 
> 
> 
> Wanting tools made specifically for killing to have some sort of regulation makes you antisemitic? Doesn't that argument itself have antisemitic implications?
Click to expand...


  The point is that such regulations are targeted at groups that those behind the regulations wish to put at a disadvantage.

  In Nazi Germany, good Aryan Germans were allowed arms, but Jews were not.  It'snot difficult to understand why.

  Here n America, as a matter of de-facto reality, criminals will always be able to obtain arms.  Those who support gun control know very well that iot is only honest,law-abiding citizens who will be deterred by the policies that they advocate.  That they would disarm honest people, while leaving criminals able to obtain arms, only goes to prove that without exception, whether by malice or by ignorance, every single person who supports any gun control law,no matter how benign it may be made to seem, is on the side of violent criminals, and against that of honest citizens.


----------



## JoeB131

Bob Blaylock said:


> So, because the Jews were such a small minority, it was perfectly OK for Germany to deny them the same basic rights that they most other Germans were allowed to enjoy? Starting, of course, with the right to bear arms, but we all know that that it didn't end there.



I'm going to repeat this SLOOOOOOOWLY so you understand, Corky. 

Jews didn't have gun rights in Germany. 

But everyone else in Germany did. 

Gun ownership amongst GERMANS didn't stop the Nazis.  The argument that we's gots to have our guns to prevent tyranny didn't work.  

Germans had guns, they still had tyranny.  

Does this get through to you?  Or are you just going to be dense?


----------



## JoeB131

Bob Blaylock said:


> The point is that such regulations are targeted at groups that those behind the regulations wish to put at a disadvantage.
> 
> In Nazi Germany, good Aryan Germans were allowed arms, but Jews were not. It'snot difficult to understand why.
> 
> *Here n America, as a matter of de-facto reality, criminals will always be able to obtain arms. *Those who support gun control know very well that iot is only honest,law-abiding citizens who will be deterred by the policies that they advocate. That they would disarm honest people, while leaving criminals able to obtain arms, only goes to prove that without exception, whether by malice or by ignorance, every single person who supports any gun control law,no matter how benign it may be made to seem, is on the side of violent criminals, and against that of honest citizens.



Except other countries limit or prevent people from having guns, and criminals DON'T get guns. 

Germany today has pretty strict gun laws, but there's about 17 million privately owned guns.  

Guess what, Germany only had 258 gun homicides compared to our 11,000.  

Imagine that. 

How is that?


----------



## Correll

JoeB131 said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, because the Jews were such a small minority, it was perfectly OK for Germany to deny them the same basic rights that they most other Germans were allowed to enjoy? Starting, of course, with the right to bear arms, but we all know that that it didn't end there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to repeat this SLOOOOOOOWLY so you understand, Corky.
> 
> Jews didn't have gun rights in Germany.
> 
> But everyone else in Germany did.
> 
> Gun ownership amongst GERMANS didn't stop the Nazis.  The argument that we's gots to have our guns to prevent tyranny didn't work.
> 
> Germans had guns, they still had tyranny.
> 
> Does this get through to you?  Or are you just going to be dense?
Click to expand...



Did Bob claim that an armed citizenry was perfect PROOF against tyranny?

If so, he overreached.

Hitler picked the Jews because Antisemitism was already widely spread in the Germany Population.

Thus the German People did not react to protect their fellow citizens.


----------



## Correll

JoeB131 said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point is that such regulations are targeted at groups that those behind the regulations wish to put at a disadvantage.
> 
> In Nazi Germany, good Aryan Germans were allowed arms, but Jews were not. It'snot difficult to understand why.
> 
> *Here n America, as a matter of de-facto reality, criminals will always be able to obtain arms. *Those who support gun control know very well that iot is only honest,law-abiding citizens who will be deterred by the policies that they advocate. That they would disarm honest people, while leaving criminals able to obtain arms, only goes to prove that without exception, whether by malice or by ignorance, every single person who supports any gun control law,no matter how benign it may be made to seem, is on the side of violent criminals, and against that of honest citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except other countries limit or prevent people from having guns, and criminals DON'T get guns.
> 
> Germany today has pretty strict gun laws, but there's about 17 million privately owned guns.
> 
> Guess what, Germany only had 258 gun homicides compared to our 11,000.
> 
> Imagine that.
> 
> How is that?
Click to expand...


Do you think poverty drives crime?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right. Hitler only disarmed the Jews. You'd love that, you Nazi fuckwad
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There were less than 500,000 Jews in Germany before the war out of a population of 80 million.
> 
> Point was, most Germans could own guns if they wanted them, and none of those Freedom Loving Germans decided to use their guns to resist the government, even after it was REALLY CLEAR they were going to lose the war.
Click to expand...


Progressive are like that, they live and die for their government


----------



## RetiredGySgt

JoeB131 said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point is that such regulations are targeted at groups that those behind the regulations wish to put at a disadvantage.
> 
> In Nazi Germany, good Aryan Germans were allowed arms, but Jews were not. It'snot difficult to understand why.
> 
> *Here n America, as a matter of de-facto reality, criminals will always be able to obtain arms. *Those who support gun control know very well that iot is only honest,law-abiding citizens who will be deterred by the policies that they advocate. That they would disarm honest people, while leaving criminals able to obtain arms, only goes to prove that without exception, whether by malice or by ignorance, every single person who supports any gun control law,no matter how benign it may be made to seem, is on the side of violent criminals, and against that of honest citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except other countries limit or prevent people from having guns, and criminals DON'T get guns.
> 
> Germany today has pretty strict gun laws, but there's about 17 million privately owned guns.
> 
> Guess what, Germany only had 258 gun homicides compared to our 11,000.
> 
> Imagine that.
> 
> How is that?
Click to expand...

Yes they do. Any criminal in Britain can get a firearm and in mainland Europe they have access to fully automatic ak-47's as proven by several terrorist attacks.


----------



## JoeB131

RetiredGySgt said:


> Yes they do. Any criminal in Britain can get a firearm and in mainland Europe they have access to fully automatic ak-47's as proven by several terrorist attacks.



The UK has 48 Gun homicides a year. 

The US has 11,000.  

The problem, again, isn't criminals.  The problem is Cleetus in his trailer park who done thinks his gun and his bible make him safe, and he shoots Mrs. Cleetus in an argument over who drank the last can of _Milwaukee's Best. _


----------



## CremeBrulee

JoeB131 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they do. Any criminal in Britain can get a firearm and in mainland Europe they have access to fully automatic ak-47's as proven by several terrorist attacks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The UK has 48 Gun homicides a year.
> 
> The US has 11,000.
> 
> The problem, again, isn't criminals.  The problem is Cleetus in his trailer park who done thinks his gun and his bible make him safe, and he shoots Mrs. Cleetus in an argument over who drank the last can of _Milwaukee's Best. _
Click to expand...

Don't hate on The Beast.  Nobody else is selling cases for less than 10 dollars.


----------



## Correll

JoeB131 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they do. Any criminal in Britain can get a firearm and in mainland Europe they have access to fully automatic ak-47's as proven by several terrorist attacks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The UK has 48 Gun homicides a year.
> 
> The US has 11,000.
> 
> The problem, again, isn't criminals.  The problem is Cleetus in his trailer park who done thinks his gun and his bible make him safe, and he shoots Mrs. Cleetus in an argument over who drank the last can of _Milwaukee's Best. _
Click to expand...


Right. Because our high crime states are driven by poor Southern Whites...

Do you believe that poverty drives crime?


----------



## JoeB131

Some people don't understand they are being ignored.


----------



## JoeB131

CremeBrulee said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem, again, isn't criminals.  The problem is Cleetus in his trailer park who done thinks his gun and his bible make him safe, and he shoots Mrs. Cleetus in an argument over who drank the last can of _Milwaukee's Best. _
> 
> 
> 
> Don't hate on The Beast.  Nobody else is selling cases for less than 10 dollars.
Click to expand...


Yeah, but it tastes like dog-piss


----------



## Hugo Furst

JoeB131 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they do. Any criminal in Britain can get a firearm and in mainland Europe they have access to fully automatic ak-47's as proven by several terrorist attacks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The UK has 48 Gun homicides a year.
> 
> The US has 11,000.
> 
> The problem, again, isn't criminals.  The problem is Cleetus in his trailer park who done thinks his gun and his bible make him safe, and he shoots Mrs. Cleetus in an argument over who drank the last can of _Milwaukee's Best. _
Click to expand...



yeah...

Because 'Cleetus' is known for shooting so many people


----------



## Bob Blaylock

JoeB131 said:


> The UK has 48 Gun homicides a year.
> 
> The US has 11,000.
> 
> The problem, again, isn't criminals.  The problem is Cleetus in his trailer park who done thinks his gun and his bible make him safe, and he shoots Mrs. Cleetus in an argument over who drank the last can of _Milwaukee's Best. _



  Pretty typical wrong-wing thinking—_“Criminals aren't the problem.”_

  Of course, it isn't surprising that you couldn't muster the intellectual capacity to realize that your hypothetical Cleetus who shoots his wife in a dispute over beer would be a criminal, and that would, in fact, be the entire cause of the problem.

  It's not clear whether, in your Cleetus example, you meant to blame the gun, or the trailer park, but neither of them would have had anything to do with a death, unless a criminal acted to cause that death.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.
> 
> What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?



The militia is BOTH the unorganized militia AND the National Guard.

The whole point of the Dick Act was to make sure people couldn't complain about not being in the militia. Had they set up just the National Guard, individuals would have had the RIGHT to join up the National Guard. It would have caused problems. So they set up the unorganized militia to tell people that hey, dude, you're in the militia already, you can't go to the Supreme Court and get this changed.

This is because a military unit like the National Guard needs discipline and you don't get this by people having a right to be in the National Guard.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Bob Blaylock said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The UK has 48 Gun homicides a year.
> 
> The US has 11,000.
> 
> The problem, again, isn't criminals.  The problem is Cleetus in his trailer park who done thinks his gun and his bible make him safe, and he shoots Mrs. Cleetus in an argument over who drank the last can of _Milwaukee's Best. _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty typical wrong-wing thinking—_“Criminals aren't the problem.”_
> 
> Of course, it isn't surprising that you couldn't muster the intellectual capacity to realize that your hypothetical Cleetus who shoots his wife in a dispute over beer would be a criminal, and that would, in fact, be the entire cause of the problem.
> 
> It's not clear whether, in your Cleetus example, you meant to blame the gun, or the trailer park, but neither of them would have had anything to do with a death, unless a criminal acted to cause that death.
Click to expand...


Criminals are the problem but the US has far more criminals than most other first world countries. Why? Because social problems are never dealt with in the US. So it's the fault of the politicians.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.
> 
> What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?



No


----------



## JoeB131

Bob Blaylock said:


> Pretty typical wrong-wing thinking—_“Criminals aren't the problem.”_
> 
> Of course, it isn't surprising that you couldn't muster the intellectual capacity to realize that your hypothetical Cleetus who shoots his wife in a dispute over beer would be a criminal, and that would, in fact, be the entire cause of the problem.



point is, he wouldn't be a "criminal" if he didn't have a gun in the house.  That's the point you don't get.  Guns allow petty arguments to escalate into tragedies.


----------



## Hugo Furst

JoeB131 said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty typical wrong-wing thinking—_“Criminals aren't the problem.”_
> 
> Of course, it isn't surprising that you couldn't muster the intellectual capacity to realize that your hypothetical Cleetus who shoots his wife in a dispute over beer would be a criminal, and that would, in fact, be the entire cause of the problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> point is, he wouldn't be a "criminal" if he didn't have a gun in the house.  That's the point you don't get.  Guns allow petty arguments to escalate into tragedies.
Click to expand...





JoeB131 said:


> point is, he wouldn't be a "criminal" if he didn't have a gun in the house



He wouldn't be a criminal if he used a knife, a crowbar, a ball bat, any of a hundred other items?

interesting


----------



## Correll

frigidweirdo said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The UK has 48 Gun homicides a year.
> 
> The US has 11,000.
> 
> The problem, again, isn't criminals.  The problem is Cleetus in his trailer park who done thinks his gun and his bible make him safe, and he shoots Mrs. Cleetus in an argument over who drank the last can of _Milwaukee's Best. _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty typical wrong-wing thinking—_“Criminals aren't the problem.”_
> 
> Of course, it isn't surprising that you couldn't muster the intellectual capacity to realize that your hypothetical Cleetus who shoots his wife in a dispute over beer would be a criminal, and that would, in fact, be the entire cause of the problem.
> 
> It's not clear whether, in your Cleetus example, you meant to blame the gun, or the trailer park, but neither of them would have had anything to do with a death, unless a criminal acted to cause that death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Criminals are the problem but the US has far more criminals than most other first world countries. Why? Because social problems are never dealt with in the US. So it's the fault of the politicians.
Click to expand...



Well, to be fair to them, it is pretty hard to address the root causes when the libs demagogue any attempts to do so.


----------



## Dan Daly

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.
> 
> What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?



Free men don't need permission, registration or constitutions to exercise their inherent human right to defend themselves by the means of their choosing.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

JoeB131 said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty typical wrong-wing thinking—_“Criminals aren't the problem.”_
> 
> Of course, it isn't surprising that you couldn't muster the intellectual capacity to realize that your hypothetical Cleetus who shoots his wife in a dispute over beer would be a criminal, and that would, in fact, be the entire cause of the problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> point is, he wouldn't be a "criminal" if he didn't have a gun in the house.  That's the point you don't get.  Guns allow petty arguments to escalate into tragedies.
Click to expand...


  It wouldn't be the gun that would make him a criminal.  It would be the willingness to unjustly and inappropriately use deadly force.  A man who would shoot this wife in a dispute over beer is a man who would still be dangerous, and almost certainly turn out to be a criminal, even if he didn't have access to a gun.

  My wife and I each, separately, grew up around guns.  My wife has a shotgun that her parents gave to her as a Christmas present when she was eight years old.  We have guns in our own home, now.

  Neither of us have ever used our guns in any manner that was harmful or threatening to anyone else.  The presence of guns in our homes has not turned us into criminals.

  Guns don't make criminals.  Criminals are criminals because of their own internal faults, because they are willing to unjustly cause harm to others, or to otherwise violate the rights of others.  Your willingness to deny your countrymen their essential right to keep and bear arms demonstrates you to be far more criminally-inclined than the vast majority of Americans who own guns.  It shows that you have no respect for the rights of other, and that you would happily violate those rights for your own selfish purposes.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

JoeB131 said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty typical wrong-wing thinking—_“Criminals aren't the problem.”_
> 
> Of course, it isn't surprising that you couldn't muster the intellectual capacity to realize that your hypothetical Cleetus who shoots his wife in a dispute over beer would be a criminal, and that would, in fact, be the entire cause of the problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> point is, he wouldn't be a "criminal" if he didn't have a gun in the house.  That's the point you don't get.  Guns allow petty arguments to escalate into tragedies.
Click to expand...

So let me get this right...... No one in the heat of the moment with no firearm grabs a knife a shovel or other implement and attacks the person they are mad at? That never happens? Be specific provide us the statistics on this heat of the moment killing spree.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

As evidenced by this chart since the 90s murder is way down. As are firearms murders. Further there are significant murders with sharp objects blunt objects and other means. Unless Joe can provide us the break down I am afraid his little rant is ignorant of the facts.Murder Victims, by Weapons     Used


----------



## JoeB131

WillHaftawaite said:


> He wouldn't be a criminal if he used a knife, a crowbar, a ball bat, any of a hundred other items?
> 
> interesting



Here's the thing.  Those things don't happen as often, and when they do, they are less certain to produce fatalities.  

crowbars aren't designed to kill people. Guns are.


----------



## JoeB131

RetiredGySgt said:


> So let me get this right...... No one in the heat of the moment with no firearm grabs a knife a shovel or other implement and attacks the person they are mad at? That never happens? Be specific provide us the statistics on this heat of the moment killing spree.



Guy, I don't talk to medicated idiots who think they are still entitled to guns. 

11,000 of americas 15,000 homicides happen with guns. 

Guns make it a lot easier to kill people, and we have the body count to show for it. 



RetiredGySgt said:


> As evidenced by this chart since the 90s murder is way down. As are firearms murders. Further there are significant murders with sharp objects blunt objects and other means. Unless Joe can provide us the break down I am afraid his little rant is ignorant of the facts



Dude, did you actually read your own fucking link, the one that shows that 69% of homicides are committed with guns and that percentage has been going UP since 2008


----------



## Hugo Furst

JoeB131 said:


> Those things don't happen as often, and when they do, they are less certain to produce fatalities.





JoeB131 said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> He wouldn't be a criminal if he used a knife, a crowbar, a ball bat, any of a hundred other items?
> 
> interesting
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the thing.  Those things don't happen as often, and when they do, they are less certain to produce fatalities.
> 
> crowbars aren't designed to kill people. Guns are.
Click to expand...


blunt instruments have been the cause of death since the time of the caveman.

if 'Cleetus' hadn't had a firearm available, would that have stopped him from doing physical, deadly, harm to Mrs Cleetus?

guns are designed to kill?

so are knives, swords, etc.

Keep blaming the object, not the person.


----------



## JoeB131

WillHaftawaite said:


> blunt instruments have been the cause of death since the time of the caveman.
> 
> if 'Cleetus' hadn't had a firearm available, would that have stopped him from doing physical, deadly, harm to Mrs Cleetus?
> 
> guns are designed to kill?
> 
> so are knives, swords, etc.
> 
> Keep blaming the object, not the person.



How many people have swords in their houses in this day and age.  (I'll ignore your silly comment about knives, which are mostly designed for cutting things.) 

Point was, Stab wounds are less fatal than gunshot wounds.  There are cases of people being stabbed 10-15 times and still surviving. 

Guns are more lethal, which is why Cleetus shouldn't own one.


----------



## Hugo Furst

JoeB131 said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> blunt instruments have been the cause of death since the time of the caveman.
> 
> if 'Cleetus' hadn't had a firearm available, would that have stopped him from doing physical, deadly, harm to Mrs Cleetus?
> 
> guns are designed to kill?
> 
> so are knives, swords, etc.
> 
> Keep blaming the object, not the person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many people have swords in their houses in this day and age.  (I'll ignore your silly comment about knives, which are mostly designed for cutting things.)
> 
> Point was, Stab wounds are less fatal than gunshot wounds.  There are cases of people being stabbed 10-15 times and still surviving.
> 
> Guns are more lethal, which is why Cleetus shouldn't own one.
Click to expand...



Still blaming he object instead of the weapon.

Guns are NOT more lethal than knives.

Both depend on hitting a vital spot to kill.

Firearms are considered more dangerous, because of the distance it can be used to hurt/damage someone.


----------



## Correll

And I would just like to point out that Joe is using "Cleetus" as a regional ethnic slur, because he is an admitted bigot.


----------



## JoeB131

Correll said:


> And I would just like to point out that Joe is using "Cleetus" as a regional ethnic slur, because he is an admitted bigot.



Naw, dude, I just see you Cleetuses for what you are.


----------



## Correll

JoeB131 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I would just like to point out that Joe is using "Cleetus" as a regional ethnic slur, because he is an admitted bigot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Naw, dude, I just see you Cleetuses for what you are.
Click to expand...


No, you're a bigot and your rationalizations are of interest only in that shine a light on how bigoted you are.


----------



## JoeB131

Cleetus you done need to move out of the trailer park, and stop chasing them possums.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

JoeB131 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> So let me get this right...... No one in the heat of the moment with no firearm grabs a knife a shovel or other implement and attacks the person they are mad at? That never happens? Be specific provide us the statistics on this heat of the moment killing spree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, I don't talk to medicated idiots who think they are still entitled to guns.
> 
> 11,000 of americas 15,000 homicides happen with guns.
> 
> Guns make it a lot easier to kill people, and we have the body count to show for it.
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> As evidenced by this chart since the 90s murder is way down. As are firearms murders. Further there are significant murders with sharp objects blunt objects and other means. Unless Joe can provide us the break down I am afraid his little rant is ignorant of the facts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, did you actually read your own fucking link, the one that shows that 69% of homicides are committed with guns and that percentage has been going UP since 2008
Click to expand...

Most murders are gang related or crimes related not heat of the moment, you claimed heat of the moment, provide evidence to support your claim.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

By the way retard I DO own a firearm, an M1 carbine one of those evil semi automatic rifles your ilk call assault rifles.


----------



## jasonnfree

JoeB131 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> So let me get this right...... No one in the heat of the moment with no firearm grabs a knife a shovel or other implement and attacks the person they are mad at? That never happens? Be specific provide us the statistics on this heat of the moment killing spree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, I don't talk to medicated idiots who think they are still entitled to guns.
> 
> 11,000 of americas 15,000 homicides happen with guns.
> 
> Guns make it a lot easier to kill people, and we have the body count to show for it.
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> As evidenced by this chart since the 90s murder is way down. As are firearms murders. Further there are significant murders with sharp objects blunt objects and other means. Unless Joe can provide us the break down I am afraid his little rant is ignorant of the facts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, did you actually read your own fucking link, the one that shows that 69% of homicides are committed with guns and that percentage has been going UP since 2008
Click to expand...


So Joe, there are areas in the country, usually in certain parts of the big cities, where there is much gun violence.  Other parts of the country, very little gun violence even where most everybody has a gun.  Let each state or municipality determine gun laws.


----------



## jasonnfree

jasonnfree said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> So let me get this right...... No one in the heat of the moment with no firearm grabs a knife a shovel or other implement and attacks the person they are mad at? That never happens? Be specific provide us the statistics on this heat of the moment killing spree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, I don't talk to medicated idiots who think they are still entitled to guns.
> 
> 11,000 of americas 15,000 homicides happen with guns.
> 
> Guns make it a lot easier to kill people, and we have the body count to show for it.
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> As evidenced by this chart since the 90s murder is way down. As are firearms murders. Further there are significant murders with sharp objects blunt objects and other means. Unless Joe can provide us the break down I am afraid his little rant is ignorant of the facts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, did you actually read your own fucking link, the one that shows that 69% of homicides are committed with guns and that percentage has been going UP since 2008
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So Joe, there are areas in the country, usually in certain parts of the big cities, where there is much gun violence.  Other parts of the country, very little gun violence even where most everybody has a gun.  Let each state or municipality determine gun laws.
Click to expand...


And I believe our decisions to allow more refugees and illegals coming here, people we know nothing about, will certainly increase the violent crime in the future.  The odds are in their favor.


----------



## JoeB131

jasonnfree said:


> So Joe, there are areas in the country, usually in certain parts of the big cities, where there is much gun violence. Other parts of the country, very little gun violence even where most everybody has a gun. Let each state or municipality determine gun laws.



There's little gun violence because there are few people.  There's lots of gun violence where there are lots of people. 

One more time. EVERY OTHER INDUSTRIAL DEMOCRACY HAS FIGURED THIS OUT. There's no good reason for civilians to own guns, and if you ban them or limit them, you don't have gun violence.  

But America, like the special Retard who keeps writing down "2+2=Cat", keeps trying to explain why there are other reasons why we have 32,000 gun deaths a year and how this is totally acceptable.


----------



## JoeB131

RetiredGySgt said:


> By the way retard I DO own a firearm, an M1 carbine one of those evil semi automatic rifles your ilk call assault rifles.



You've also said that you need to be heavily medicated to keep from going on homicidal rampages. 

Which is a pretty good reason why you shouldn't have a gun.


----------



## Correll

JoeB131 said:


> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Joe, there are areas in the country, usually in certain parts of the big cities, where there is much gun violence. Other parts of the country, very little gun violence even where most everybody has a gun. Let each state or municipality determine gun laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's little gun violence because there are few people.  There's lots of gun violence where there are lots of people.
> 
> One more time. EVERY OTHER INDUSTRIAL DEMOCRACY HAS FIGURED THIS OUT. There's no good reason for civilians to own guns, and if you ban them or limit them, you don't have gun violence.
> 
> But America, like the special Retard who keeps writing down "2+2=Cat", keeps trying to explain why there are other reasons why we have 32,000 gun deaths a year and how this is totally acceptable.
Click to expand...


Link to show that rural or suburban crime rates are only low in absolute numbers not per capita.


----------



## Hugo Furst

JoeB131 said:


> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Joe, there are areas in the country, usually in certain parts of the big cities, where there is much gun violence. Other parts of the country, very little gun violence even where most everybody has a gun. Let each state or municipality determine gun laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's little gun violence because there are few people.  There's lots of gun violence where there are lots of people.
> 
> One more time. EVERY OTHER INDUSTRIAL DEMOCRACY HAS FIGURED THIS OUT. There's no good reason for civilians to own guns, and if you ban them or limit them, you don't have gun violence.
> 
> But America, like the special Retard who keeps writing down "2+2=Cat", keeps trying to explain why there are other reasons why we have 32,000 gun deaths a year and how this is totally acceptable.
Click to expand...




JoeB131 said:


> There's little gun violence because there are few people. There's lots of gun violence where there are lots of people



Top 10 states for gun violence are considered Red states.

States With the Most Gun Violence

Top 10 cities for gun violence are considered Blue cities.

What to do the top 10 cities with highest gun-related homicides per 100,000 people have in common? | Fire Andrea Mitchell!

and Chicago didn't make the list.


----------



## JoeB131

Comparing cities and  states is like comparing apples and oranges.


----------



## Hugo Furst

JoeB131 said:


> Comparing cities and  states is like comparing apples and oranges.




States==lots of spread out people.



JoeB131 said:


> Comparing cities and  states is like comparing apples and oranges.



Cities==lots of people in a small area.


----------



## jasonnfree

JoeB131 said:


> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Joe, there are areas in the country, usually in certain parts of the big cities, where there is much gun violence. Other parts of the country, very little gun violence even where most everybody has a gun. Let each state or municipality determine gun laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's little gun violence because there are few people.  There's lots of gun violence where there are lots of people.
> 
> One more time. EVERY OTHER INDUSTRIAL DEMOCRACY HAS FIGURED THIS OUT. There's no good reason for civilians to own guns, and if you ban them or limit them, you don't have gun violence.
> 
> But America, like the special Retard who keeps writing down "2+2=Cat", keeps trying to explain why there are other reasons why we have 32,000 gun deaths a year and how this is totally acceptable.
Click to expand...



Every other industrial democracy didn't have gun rights like we do in the first place.    With Obama willing to take in as many  syrian refugees as possible, mostly young men.... good luck being disarmed.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

JoeB131 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the way retard I DO own a firearm, an M1 carbine one of those evil semi automatic rifles your ilk call assault rifles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've also said that you need to be heavily medicated to keep from going on homicidal rampages.
> 
> Which is a pretty good reason why you shouldn't have a gun.
Click to expand...

Liar. quote me where I said that.


----------



## JoeB131

jasonnfree said:


> Every other industrial democracy didn't have gun rights like we do in the first place. With Obama willing to take in as many syrian refugees as possible, mostly young men.... good luck being disarmed.



Guy, only 13 Americans were killed by terrorists in 2014. 

A lot more were killed by Second Amendment Enthusiasts shooting up churches, schools, theaters, etc.  

Just because 200 years ago, some dumb-ass slave rapists couldn't write a militia amendment properly is not a good reason to let crazy people buy guns.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

"Would you be willing to accept this Second Amendment compromise?"

Again, this is a 'compromise' in search of a 'dispute' – universal background checks are currently Constitutional, as a Federal court has held with regard to Colorado's UBC statute; and citizens are able to obtain concealed carry permits in each of the 50 states; there's little point to accept comprehensive reciprocity when UBC laws can be enacted in jurisdictions that so desire, laws likely to pass Constitutional muster.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.
> 
> What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?


 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
So....  no.


----------



## Treeshepherd

M14 Shooter said:


> 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
> So.... no.



The amendment just says "Arms". That could be nuclear arms, like a personal suitcase nuke. Could be a vehicle-mounted grenade launcher on an L.A. Freeway. The amendment doesn't say anything about a hyper ADD 4th-grader carrying a side arm. Pretty sure everybody agrees that would be a bad idea. There has to be compromise. Different people will disagree on where the line should be drawn.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Treeshepherd said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> So.... no.
> 
> 
> 
> The amendment just says "Arms".
Click to expand...

A term that has been greatly clarified by the court - nukes and belt-fed grenade launcher do not qualify; firearms in common use for lawful puposes do.


----------



## emilynghiem

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.
> 
> What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?



I'd set it up the other way: Allow citizens access to take the same training and oath as officers,
including mental health screening.

If officers only agree to work in districts where gun owners are REQUIRED to take the same
training, oath and screening as they are, then the district, city or homeowners/neighborhood association
can decide their own rules on that as part of the local ordinances.

But it would have to be a policy decided on a local level,
similar to the policies for hiring teachers, and what is required to teach professionally.
Or what is the requirement for DAYCARE providers, or for counselors.

If a district or association agrees that within their jurisdiction, they only want
professionally trained police or guards, etc. that is up to that private group.

But I do not believe you can get a consensus on the state or federal level to regulate guns to this degree.
Maybe on a local level, the residents and property owners could form a private agreement.


----------



## emilynghiem

Treeshepherd said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> So.... no.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The amendment just says "Arms". That could be nuclear arms, like a personal suitcase nuke. Could be a vehicle-mounted grenade launcher on an L.A. Freeway. The amendment doesn't say anything about a hyper ADD 4th-grader carrying a side arm. Pretty sure everybody agrees that would be a bad idea. There has to be compromise. Different people will disagree on where the line should be drawn.
Click to expand...


Dear Treeshepherd
Where I believe people agree:
1. Nobody has the right to bear arms for the purpose of violating rights or laws.
(we just don't agree how to pinpoint these people without overreaching and punishing law abiding citizens)
2. The purpose of guns is clearly to be CONSISTENT with *DEFENDING laws and rights* not violating them.

You do not need to be an official officer to enforce the laws.
Anyone can stop a robbery, rape or other crime by intervening to defend the rights or laws being violated.

So anyone with this intent has the right to use arms "for the purpose of DEFENDING the law" from violation.

Where people disagree
1. What is the "due process" by which people can be "determined to have criminal intent"
and/or inability to use guns for the agreed purpose of defending the law
2. What level of law or govt can determine regulations on individual liberty to own or use guns
for people who "haven't been found guilty of committing crimes"

I would recommend community agreements between residents and local police
on what ordinances or standards they agree to enforce, what process and training are required, etc.
Whatever works on local levels to reduce crime, violence and abuse should be recommended
to other districts, cities or states to adopt. I believe this is best established by a democratic process,
to encourage citizen participation in govt, and not by politicized agenda mandated from the top down.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

emilynghiem said:


> Dear Treeshepherd
> Where I believe people agree:
> 1. Nobody has the right to bear arms for the purpose of violating rights or laws.
> (we just don't agree how to pinpoint these people without overreaching and punishing law abiding citizens)
> 2. The purpose of guns is clearly to be CONSISTENT with *DEFENDING laws and rights* not violating them.



  I do not agree with either of these statements.

  The right to keep and bear arms belongs to every free American, and is not dependent on any individual's purpose—whether for good or ill—for wanting to do so.

  If someone uses a gun to commit a robbery, then that robbery is a crime, for which he should be fully prosecuted.  No matter his intent, he had a right to be in possession of a gun (assuming it was rightfully his, and not stolen from someone else); but he did not have a right to rob anyone.

  It is legitimate to prosecute someone as a criminal for committing an act which unjustly violates the rights of others.  It is not legitimate—not even in connection with a genuine crime—to prosecute someone for being in possession of something which the Constitution explicitly affirms his right to possess.

  And the purpose of a gun is whatever its owner or possessor intends its purpose to be, nothing more or less.




emilynghiem said:


> Where people disagree
> 1. What is the "due process" by which people can be "determined to have criminal intent"
> and/or inability to use guns for the agreed purpose of defending the law
> 2. What level of law or govt can determine regulations on individual liberty to own or use guns
> for people who "haven't been found guilty of committing crimes"



  The Constitution is clear enough.

  Criminal intent is established by due process of law. which means that one accused of having committed a crime is given a proper trial, and found, by a unanimous ruling by a jury, to be guilty of that crime, whereupon he may be sentenced to an appropriate punishment for that crime.

  The Constitution rather clearly forbids government from imposing _“regulations on individual liberty to own or use guns
for people who ‘haven't been found guilty of committing crimes’”_.

  Though _“innocent until proven guilty”_ is not found in the Constitution, it has long been considered an essential foundation of our system of laws and justice.  One cannot legitimately be denied any of his Constitutional rights just because he is suspected of having criminal intent.  He can only be denied as part of a sentence for a crime of which he has been properly and lawfully convicted by a jury of his peers, in the course of a proper trial.


----------



## emilynghiem

Bob Blaylock said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Treeshepherd
> Where I believe people agree:
> 1. Nobody has the right to bear arms for the purpose of violating rights or laws.
> (we just don't agree how to pinpoint these people without overreaching and punishing law abiding citizens)
> 2. The purpose of guns is clearly to be CONSISTENT with *DEFENDING laws and rights* not violating them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not agree with either of these statements.
> 
> The right to keep and bear arms belongs to every free American, and is not dependent on any individual's purpose—whether for good or ill—for wanting to do so.
> 
> If someone uses a gun to commit a robbery, then that robbery is a crime, for which he should be fully prosecuted.  No matter his intent, he had a right to be in possession of a gun (assuming it was rightfully his, and not stolen from someone else); but he did not have a right to rob anyone.
> 
> It is legitimate to prosecute someone as a criminal for committing an act which unjustly violates the rights of others.  It is not legitimate—not even in connection with a genuine crime—to prosecute someone for being in possession of something which the Constitution explicitly affirms his right to possess.
> 
> And the purpose of a gun is whatever its owner or possessor intends its purpose to be, nothing more or less.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where people disagree
> 1. What is the "due process" by which people can be "determined to have criminal intent"
> and/or inability to use guns for the agreed purpose of defending the law
> 2. What level of law or govt can determine regulations on individual liberty to own or use guns
> for people who "haven't been found guilty of committing crimes"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Constitution is clear enough.
> 
> Criminal intent is established by due process of law. which means that one accused of having committed a crime is given a proper trial, and found, by a unanimous ruling by a jury, to be guilty of that crime, whereupon he may be sentenced to an appropriate punishment for that crime.
> 
> The Constitution rather clearly forbids government from imposing _“regulations on individual liberty to own or use guns
> for people who ‘haven't been found guilty of committing crimes’”_.
> 
> Though _“innocent until proven guilty”_ is not found in the Constitution, it has long been considered an essential foundation of our system of laws and justice.  One cannot legitimately be denied any of his Constitutional rights just because he is suspected of having criminal intent.  He can only be denied as part of a sentence for a crime of which he has been properly and lawfully convicted by a jury of his peers, in the course of a proper trial.
Click to expand...


No, I disagree. If you are criminally ill where you would commit a crime using a weapon
NO you do NOT have a right to own, borrow, get or use a gun.

If you use a gun to defend yourself, yes.

If you are so legally incompetent, such a danger to society, 
that you need to be under supervision,
then NO you do not need access to a gun if you are that sick.

Bob Blaylock 
if you believe EVERY PERSON has the inherent right to a gun
what AGE would you consider the legal age of consent?

is 18 just a magic number where as long as you are that age you automatically have this right?

sorry but there are responsibilities that come with gun ownership.

The same way you don't automatically get to 'drive a car' just because you turn a certain age,
you don't automatically get to have a gun. That would be negligent to endanger the public.

There is "common sense" involved in government.

All the people I know who defend gun rights take this for granted
that they are all versed in Constitutional laws and history.

There has to be that commitment to use guns to defend the law, and not to violate laws,
or else it is either negligence or malicious to let people have guns who are
so criminally ill as to be legally incompetent.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

emilynghiem said:


> No, I disagree. If you are criminally ill where you would commit a crime using a weapon
> NO you do NOT have a right to own, borrow, get or use a gun.
> 
> If you use a gun to defend yourself, yes.
> 
> If you are so legally incompetent, such a danger to society,
> that you need to be under supervision,
> then NO you do not need access to a gun if you are that sick.



  If a person can be proven, through proper due process of law, to be a danger to society, due to criminality or to mental dysfunction; then the solution is to remove that person from free society.

  As long as such a person remains free, it does no good to enact a law that says that person may not possess arms.  If someone is not going to obey laws that say that one may not commit acts of robbery or violence, then one is certainly not going to be any more obedient to laws against possessing weapons.

  Where you have someone who is proven to be unwilling or unable to obey the law, there is nothing to be gained by passing more laws for him to disobey.




emilynghiem said:


> Bob Blaylock
> if you believe EVERY PERSON has the inherent right to a gun
> what AGE would you consider the legal age of consent?
> 
> is 18 just a magic number where as long as you are that age you automatically have this right?



  I figure that legal adulthood is a reasonable point.  Before one is an adult, one is not truly free, but is subject to the will of his parents or guardians.

  I don't know that there was a clear boundary defining when someone became an adult back when the Second Amendment was written, but since then, it has been rather sharply defined as eighteen years of age.

  It's worth noting, I think, that the Second Militia Act of 1792—enacted the year after the Bill of Rights was ratified—defined the militia as consisting of all able-bodied men from the ages of seventeen to forty five years; so at that point, one was obviously considered a man—an adult—by seventeen years of age.



emilynghiem said:


> sorry but there are responsibilities that come with gun ownership.
> 
> The same way you don't automatically get to 'drive a car' just because you turn a certain age,
> you don't automatically get to have a gun. That would be negligent to endanger the public.
> 
> There is "common sense" involved in government.
> 
> All the people I know who defend gun rights take this for granted
> that they are all versed in Constitutional laws and history.
> 
> There has to be that commitment to use guns to defend the law, and not to violate laws,
> or else it is either negligence or malicious to let people have guns who are
> so criminally ill as to be legally incompetent.



  Nothing in the Second Amendment, nor anywhere else in the Constitution allows any such conditions to be placed on the right to keep and bear arms.  In fact, in the strongest and clearest language found anywhere in the Constitution, it forbids government from even touching this right.  If you don't like it, go ahead and write your elected misrepresentatives, and ask them to initiate the process of ratifying an amendment to overturn the Second Amendment.  But unless and until such an effort is successfully completed, the Second Amendment remains part of the highest law in this nation, and you are on the wrong side of it.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.
> 
> What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?



1)  To the extent that I think "militia" even NEEDS to be interpreted, I do indeed adhere to the meaning of the word as it was at the time of the ratification of the Constitution.  I see no reason to interpret it as anything else, since any sort of official, standing military body would simply be irrelevant to the topic of the Second Amendment.

2)  Defining militias is a fairly secondary issue, anyway, since the Second Amendment has always referred to a right of individual citizens.  Not only have the writings of the authors of the Constitution said so, the Supreme Court has very consistently ruled that way all along.  I'm not one for worshipping the words dripping from the lips of lawyers in black robes, but the left is, so it's odd that on this one subject, they're willing to just wave away the position of the courts.

3)  I have no interest whatsoever in a "compromise" that is nothing more than "We just tell you how reasonable we're being, and you give us our way".  I'm certainly not going to require some 90-pound female or 60-year-old granny to join the National Guard simply to "earn" her Constitutional right to protect herself from mugging, rape, and home invasion.  Fucktard.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Correll said:


> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> NOpe.
> 
> Any attempt to raise the cost of gun ownership is a restriction on a important Right.
> 
> 
> 
> If the whole point of the amendment is arming the militia, then shouldn't we be barring those incapable of entering the militia to have one? Think about the kind of person who couldn't even join a volunteer irregular military-lite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am.
> 
> Old people, handicapped people, women who do not want to be part of a military force...
> 
> I have read too many accounts of people like that using guns to protect themselves to want to take away their guns.
Click to expand...


Exactly.  I'm a 46-year-old grandmother with a bad knee.  I couldn't join the National Guard even if I wanted to.  I fail to see why I should agree to forfeit my right to shoot a burglar to ignorant leftist twats who are terrified at the idea of self-defense.

I very much believe that gun control is the strange notion that a woman found in an alley, strangled with her own pantyhose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to the cops how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound.  No thanks.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> NOpe.
> 
> Any attempt to raise the cost of gun ownership is a restriction on a important Right.
> 
> 
> 
> If the whole point of the amendment is arming the militia, then shouldn't we be barring those incapable of entering the militia to have one? Think about the kind of person who couldn't even join a volunteer irregular military-lite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am.
> 
> Old people, handicapped people, women who do not want to be part of a military force...
> 
> I have read too many accounts of people like that using guns to protect themselves to want to take away their guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The elderly and handicapped would be subject to that, yeah. The point of the amendment is arming the militia for use by the state, according to the amendment itself. Not everyone falls under the militia. It's meant to be the citizens - originally men - of military age. Look into the Selective Service. Its requirements are a good guide.
Click to expand...


The point of what amendment?  The Second, or your half-assed suggestion that holds no benefit whatsoever for the people you expect to just meekly hand over their rights to you?

The point of the Second Amendment is to guarantee the right of individual citizens to keep and bear arms.  I have no idea what point you're trying to accomplish with your dumbass suggestion.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Pogo said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> NOpe.
> 
> Any attempt to raise the cost of gun ownership is a restriction on a important Right.
> 
> 
> 
> If the whole point of the amendment is arming the militia, then shouldn't we be barring those incapable of entering the militia to have one? Think about the kind of person who couldn't even join a volunteer irregular military-lite.
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not happening, we have you anti gun loons by the short hairs with the 2nd as it is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not anti-gun. I'm taking the Second Amendment at its word as to its meaning. It says that we can own guns because the militia needs to have guns. What I want is to make gun owners the militia and give them the regulation and training they need to pose more of a danger to foreign and domestic enemies than to themselves and innocent bystanders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the whole point of the amendment is arming the militia,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, it's to give THE PEOPLE the right to keep and bear arms
> 
> 
> 
> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> It says that we can own guns because the militia needs to have guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not what it says
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually it *is* what it says.  "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" is what the dependent clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" DEPENDS on.  If that wasn't a dependent clause, it would have no reason to be written there.
Click to expand...


You should really get busy writing a letter to the Supreme Court, explaining to them how they are completely wrong in their interpretation of that Amendment and outlining your far superior understanding of the law.  Let us know how that works for you.


----------



## Cecilie1200

SAYIT said:


> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I'm not anti-gun. I'm absolutely fine with you having one. I'm even fine with you walking around with it concealed in public. I just want you to pass a psychological screening and have a basic awareness and respect for the killing tool in your hand instilled into you before you're allowed to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah ... so how do gun-control laws restrict flaming loons from getting them in a country that specifically enshrines the right to own guns? The loons can always get them.
Click to expand...


We have always recognized that rights can be forfeited by an individual in the interest of public safety.  This is why a person's right to liberty can be taken when they're convicted of a crime, and why felons are denied certain rights after they're released, including gun ownership.  There are ways to deny legal gun ownership to crazy people that don't involve disarming all the sane folks.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't consider the Founding Slave Rapist's inability to write a militia amendment clearly to be the "highest law of the nation".
> 
> No other country has the kind of anarchy we have with gun ownership.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter whether you recognize it as such.  The fact remains, that the Constitution is our highest law, and its status as such does not depend in the least bit on whether you recognize it, or agree with it.  And of course, you continue to engage in the hypocritical folly of crying “anarcy” at those of us who recognize the law and wish for it to be obeyed, while expressing your own abject contempt for the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody is talking about not recognizing the Constitution. We're talking about an amendment, which is the Constitutional way to change the document. We've done it before. It's not exactly a new thing.
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right. Hitler only disarmed the Jews. You'd love that, you Nazi fuckwad
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wanting tools made specifically for killing to have some sort of regulation makes you antisemitic? Doesn't that argument itself have antisemitic implications?
Click to expand...


You have yet to explain to us why we should agree to such a compromise, or really, to ANY compromise on the subject.  We have both the Constitution, the Supreme Court rulings, and well over a century of practical application of the law on our side.  Why on Earth should we budge at all when we're winning?


----------



## SAYIT

Cecilie1200 said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I'm not anti-gun. I'm absolutely fine with you having one. I'm even fine with you walking around with it concealed in public. I just want you to pass a psychological screening and have a basic awareness and respect for the killing tool in your hand instilled into you before you're allowed to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah ... so how do gun-control laws restrict flaming loons from getting them in a country that specifically enshrines the right to own guns? The loons can always get them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have always recognized that rights can be forfeited by an individual in the interest of public safety.  This is why a person's right to liberty can be taken when they're convicted of a crime, and why felons are denied certain rights after they're released, including gun ownership.  There are ways to deny legal gun ownership to crazy people that don't involve disarming all the sane folks.
Click to expand...


I'm certainly do not support "disarming sane folks" and yeah ... I get that society can restrict certain people from _legally_ obtaining weapons but in practice they get guns anyway.


----------



## danielpalos

There is no need to modify our federal Constitution or Second Amendment, simply Because, that is how Good of a job our Founding Fathers did.  There is No Thing ambiguous in our supreme law of the land.


----------



## Cecilie1200

SAYIT said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I'm not anti-gun. I'm absolutely fine with you having one. I'm even fine with you walking around with it concealed in public. I just want you to pass a psychological screening and have a basic awareness and respect for the killing tool in your hand instilled into you before you're allowed to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah ... so how do gun-control laws restrict flaming loons from getting them in a country that specifically enshrines the right to own guns? The loons can always get them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have always recognized that rights can be forfeited by an individual in the interest of public safety.  This is why a person's right to liberty can be taken when they're convicted of a crime, and why felons are denied certain rights after they're released, including gun ownership.  There are ways to deny legal gun ownership to crazy people that don't involve disarming all the sane folks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm certainly do not support "disarming sane folks" and yeah ... I get that society can restrict certain people from _legally_ obtaining weapons but in practice they get guns anyway.
Click to expand...


I'm afraid that if you're looking for a 100% solution, you're destined for disappointment.


----------



## Cecilie1200

danielpalos said:


> There is no need to modify our federal Constitution or Second Amendment, simply Because, that is how Good of a job our Founding Fathers did.  There is No Thing ambiguous in our supreme law of the land.



The Second Amendment is not the least ambiguous, unless you're deliberately looking for a way to weasel people out of their Constitutional rights in order to remake the country in your ideal image, with or without other people's consent.


----------



## danielpalos

I am not sure what you mean; our Founding Fathers said what they meant and meant what they said.  There is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law.


----------



## Cecilie1200

danielpalos said:


> I am not sure what you mean; our Founding Fathers said what they meant and meant what they said.  There is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law.



Pretty much what I said.  They wrote an Amendment about an individual right, they interpreted and applied it as an individual right, the Supreme Court upheld it as an individual right (and thought it was so obvious, they've hardly ever even felt the need to address it).  The only people who are confused about it being an individual right are dipshits trying to weasel their way around to forcing their worldview onto others.  FYI, that'd be you, Chuckles.


----------



## danielpalos

Cecilie1200 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure what you mean; our Founding Fathers said what they meant and meant what they said.  There is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty much what I said.  They wrote an Amendment about an individual right, they interpreted and applied it as an individual right, the Supreme Court upheld it as an individual right (and thought it was so obvious, they've hardly ever even felt the need to address it).  The only people who are confused about it being an individual right are dipshits trying to weasel their way around to forcing their worldview onto others.  FYI, that'd be you, Chuckles.
Click to expand...

Yes, you pretty much appealed to ignorance of the law.  I hope our juniors don't fall for it.  

Our Second Article of Amendment contains no language establishing Individual rights.


----------



## Pedro de San Patricio

"The right of each individual free person to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That's how an individualist amendment would be written. You don't include anything about a militia or national security. You don't use a collective term. You don't qualify it in any way.

"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." That's what we have now. It specifies that this right of the people is secured because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. Your prior ownership of, and hopefully experience with, a gun will become important to national security if we ever have to call up the organized militia.

The problem with this amendment is that both sides are only reading half. The gun grabbers only read up to the comma while the gun nuts start reading there. What we need is a legal interpretation of the entire text. What I proposed in the OP was an amendment to clarify it and make this easier.


----------



## danielpalos

I am not sure what you mean; rights in private property, which includes the class called Arms, are secured in State Constitutions.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> "The right of each individual free person to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That's how an individualist amendment would be written. You don't include anything about a militia or national security. You don't use a collective term. You don't qualify it in any way.


 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.
If you believe otherwise, you are either ignorant of the issue or are lying to yourself.


----------



## Pedro de San Patricio

M14 Shooter said:


> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The right of each individual free person to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That's how an individualist amendment would be written. You don't include anything about a militia or national security. You don't use a collective term. You don't qualify it in any way.
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> If you believe otherwise, you are either ignorant of the issue or are lying to yourself.
Click to expand...

See, the problem with that can be stated in one question: if it's unconnected with the militia, then why does the text connect it with the militia?


----------



## Hugo Furst

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The right of each individual free person to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That's how an individualist amendment would be written. You don't include anything about a militia or national security. You don't use a collective term. You don't qualify it in any way.
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> If you believe otherwise, you are either ignorant of the issue or are lying to yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See, the problem with that can be stated in one question: if it's unconnected with the militia, then why does the text connect it with the militia?
Click to expand...



You've been told over, and over again...

it gives the right to the people, not the militia.

the militia is secondary.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

danielpalos said:


> There is No Thing ambiguous in our supreme law of the land.



Always the liberal idiot I see!! Does the SCOTUS vote 9-0 each time???
What does that teach you??


----------



## danielpalos

M14 Shooter said:


> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The right of each individual free person to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That's how an individualist amendment would be written. You don't include anything about a militia or national security. You don't use a collective term. You don't qualify it in any way.
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> If you believe otherwise, you are either ignorant of the issue or are lying to yourself.
Click to expand...

There is no language denoting Individual rights in our Second Article of Amendment.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

danielpalos said:


> There is no language denoting Individual rights in our Second Article of Amendment.



_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._​


----------



## Pedro de San Patricio

Bob Blaylock said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no language denoting Individual rights in our Second Article of Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _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...

This is what I was talking about.

The liberal reading: _A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state_
The conservative reading: _the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed_
The actual text: _A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed._

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no language denoting Individual rights in our Second Article of Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _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...
> 
> This is what I was talking about.
> 
> The liberal reading: _A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state_
> The conservative reading: _the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed_
> The actual text: _A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed._
> 
> The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state
Click to expand...


  I was, of course, responding to Mr. Palos' claim that there was no individual right stated in the Second Amendment.  But it clearly refers to _“the right of the people”_.  Only in a Marxist-style collectivist hive society would a _“right of the people”_ mean anything other than a right that belongs to each free individual member of that society.

  The key operative part of the Second Amendment is _“…the right of the people…shall not be infringed.”_  This makes it clear that it is affirming a right that belongs to the people, not to the federal government, the states, nor to any other part of government, but to each individual member of our society.  It also forbids government from infringing this right in any way.  _“Infringe”_ is a rather curious word, that was carefully chosen for this use.  It is related the the word _“fringe”_, referring to the barest edges of something.  What it means, here, is that government is forbidden from even touching the barest edges of the right that is affirmed herein.

  Outside of that, what remains are a statement describing and defining which right it is that is being so affirmed, and a statement of a purpose for which the founders deemed this right so worthy of such strong and absolute protection.


----------



## Pedro de San Patricio

You know, we could always amend it a different way and remove the part you don't think matters. "The right of each individual citizen to keep and bear any sort of arms for any reason shall not be infringed in any way."


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> You know, we could always amend it a different way and remove the part you don't think matters. "The right of each individual citizen to keep and bear any sort of arms for any reason shall not be infringed in any way."



  No need.  It's quite clear enough exactly as written.  The problem is not with the wording of the Amendment, but with the refusal of certain corrupt parts of government to obey it.  That's the same problem with much of the rest of the Constitution as well.  Government that refuses to obey the COnstitution as written will not obey it any better if it is rewritten to _“clarify”_ it.  There is no solution to be found in rewriting or _“clarifying”_ the Constitution; only in finding a way to remove from office those who disobey it, and to hold them properly responsible for their crimes.


----------



## danielpalos

Bob Blaylock said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no language denoting Individual rights in our Second Article of Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _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...

The People is collective, not Individual, dear.


----------



## danielpalos

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no language denoting Individual rights in our Second Article of Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _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...
> 
> This is what I was talking about.
> 
> The liberal reading: _A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state_
> The conservative reading: _the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed_
> The actual text: _A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed._
> 
> The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state
Click to expand...

Only well regulated _Militias_ of the _People_ may not be _Infringed_ when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.


----------



## danielpalos

Bob Blaylock said:


> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no language denoting Individual rights in our Second Article of Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _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...
> 
> This is what I was talking about.
> 
> The liberal reading: _A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state_
> The conservative reading: _the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed_
> The actual text: _A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed._
> 
> The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was, of course, responding to Mr. Palos' claim that there was no individual right stated in the Second Amendment.  But it clearly refers to _“the right of the people”_.  Only in a Marxist-style collectivist hive society would a _“right of the people”_ mean anything other than a right that belongs to each free individual member of that society.
> 
> The key operative part of the Second Amendment is _“…the right of the people…shall not be infringed.”_  This makes it clear that it is affirming a right that belongs to the people, not to the federal government, the states, nor to any other part of government, but to each individual member of our society.  It also forbids government from infringing this right in any way.  _“Infringe”_ is a rather curious word, that was carefully chosen for this use.  It is related the the word _“fringe”_, referring to the barest edges of something.  What it means, here, is that government is forbidden from even touching the barest edges of the right that is affirmed herein.
> 
> Outside of that, what remains are a statement describing and defining which right it is that is being so affirmed, and a statement of a purpose for which the founders deemed this right so worthy of such strong and absolute protection.
Click to expand...

not at all, dear; words, as terms, have specific meaning at law.


----------



## Cecilie1200

danielpalos said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure what you mean; our Founding Fathers said what they meant and meant what they said.  There is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty much what I said.  They wrote an Amendment about an individual right, they interpreted and applied it as an individual right, the Supreme Court upheld it as an individual right (and thought it was so obvious, they've hardly ever even felt the need to address it).  The only people who are confused about it being an individual right are dipshits trying to weasel their way around to forcing their worldview onto others.  FYI, that'd be you, Chuckles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, you pretty much appealed to ignorance of the law.  I hope our juniors don't fall for it.
> 
> Our Second Article of Amendment contains no language establishing Individual rights.
Click to expand...


What does "the right of the people" mean in "I went to public school, give me my marching orders" land?

Before you say something stupid - in other words, before you say anything at all - let me point out that the Founding Fathers were extremely specific about their word choices.  There is not one single time in the Constitution where they use the phrase "the people" without it specifically referring to individual citizens.  

Now then, what pig-ignorant thing were you going to say it meant?


----------



## danielpalos

It is a _Collective_ term, not an _Individual_ term, should we need to quibble in legal venues, dear.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.
> 
> What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?



_
The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,_* the right of the people*_ to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."_

_The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces._

You'll notice the people have the right to keep and bear arms, not only the militia.
A big NO to your suggestion.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

danielpalos said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no language denoting Individual rights in our Second Article of Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _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...
> 
> The People is collective, not Individual, dear.
Click to expand...


  Only in a Marxist-type collectivist hive society, which the United States is not.  The United States is (or at least is supposed to be, and was assumed by those who wrote the Constitution to be) a society of free and independent individuals; and in such a society, _“the people”_ refers to each of these individuals.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.
> 
> What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _
> The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,_* the right of the people*_ to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."_
> 
> _The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces._
> 
> You'll notice the people have the right to keep and bear arms, not only the militia.
> A big NO to your suggestion.
Click to expand...

That is not the point; the point is that the _People_ is not the _Person_.  There is a difference.  Thus, there can be no appeal to ignorance of the first clause, which explains the Intent and Purpose of why it is necessary and proper.


----------



## danielpalos

Bob Blaylock said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no language denoting Individual rights in our Second Article of Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _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...
> 
> The People is collective, not Individual, dear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only in a Marxist-type collectivist hive society, which the United States is not.  The United States is (or at least is supposed to be, and was assumed by those who wrote the Constitution to be) a society of free and independent individuals; and in such a society, _“the people”_ refers to each of these individuals.
Click to expand...

you, Sir; really just need to _acquire_ and _possess_, a clue and a Cause.


----------



## frigidweirdo

danielpalos said:


> It is a _Collective_ term, not an _Individual_ term, should we need to quibble in legal venues, dear.



Except it isn't.


----------



## frigidweirdo

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.
> 
> What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _
> The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,_* the right of the people*_ to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."_
> 
> _The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces._
> 
> You'll notice the people have the right to keep and bear arms, not only the militia.
> A big NO to your suggestion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is not the point; the point is that the _People_ is not the _Person_.  There is a difference.  Thus, there can be no appeal to ignorance of the first clause, which explains the Intent and Purpose of why it is necessary and proper.
Click to expand...


The right to keep arms is the right of people to own weapons so the US govt can't take them away.
The right to bear arms is the right of people to be in the militia so they can use these weapons.

If it were a collective right it would be null and void. It would be a waste of time to write the thing in the first place.

Yeah, let's write a clause, and make it collective, so that the right of the collective to own weapons so the US govt can't take them away, but we make it collective so the US govt CAN take them away. 

Hmm.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You'll notice the people have the right to keep and bear arms, not only the militia.
> A big NO to your suggestion.



The militia doesn't have a right to keep arms, nor does it have a right to bear arms. The issues of the militia are brought up in article 1 section 8, not in the 2A.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

danielpalos said:


> That is not the point; the point is that the _People_ is not the _Person_.  There is a difference.  Thus, there can be no appeal to ignorance of the first clause, which explains the Intent and Purpose of why it is necessary and proper.



_“People”_ is the plural form of _“person”_.  If there was only one individual to whom the Second Amendment applied, then it would be properly written _“…the right of the person…”_.  But there's more than one.  Last I knew, the number was on the order of about three hundred million *people*.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.
> 
> What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _
> The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,_* the right of the people*_ to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."_
> 
> _The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces._
> 
> You'll notice the people have the right to keep and bear arms, not only the militia.
> A big NO to your suggestion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is not the point; the point is that the _People_ is not the _Person_.  There is a difference.  Thus, there can be no appeal to ignorance of the first clause, which explains the Intent and Purpose of why it is necessary and proper.
Click to expand...

*
That is not the point; the point is that the *_*People*_* is not the *_*Person*_*.
*
I'm wondering what is your definition of "the People" and "the Person"?


----------



## danielpalos

frigidweirdo said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a _Collective_ term, not an _Individual_ term, should we need to quibble in legal venues, dear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except it isn't.
Click to expand...

yes, dear; it is.


----------



## danielpalos

frigidweirdo said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.
> 
> What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _
> The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,_* the right of the people*_ to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."_
> 
> _The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces._
> 
> You'll notice the people have the right to keep and bear arms, not only the militia.
> A big NO to your suggestion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is not the point; the point is that the _People_ is not the _Person_.  There is a difference.  Thus, there can be no appeal to ignorance of the first clause, which explains the Intent and Purpose of why it is necessary and proper.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to keep arms is the right of people to own weapons so the US govt can't take them away.
> The right to bear arms is the right of people to be in the militia so they can use these weapons.
> 
> If it were a collective right it would be null and void. It would be a waste of time to write the thing in the first place.
> 
> Yeah, let's write a clause, and make it collective, so that the right of the collective to own weapons so the US govt can't take them away, but we make it collective so the US govt CAN take them away.
> 
> Hmm.
Click to expand...

dear, here is the Intent and Purpose:  "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state"  

notice how your hearsay and soothsay is nowhere to be found.


----------



## danielpalos

frigidweirdo said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You'll notice the people have the right to keep and bear arms, not only the militia.
> A big NO to your suggestion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The militia doesn't have a right to keep arms, nor does it have a right to bear arms. The issues of the militia are brought up in article 1 section 8, not in the 2A.
Click to expand...

dear; the _People_ are the _Militia_.  Only the _People_ who are a well regulated _Militia_ have literal recourse.


----------



## danielpalos

Bob Blaylock said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not the point; the point is that the _People_ is not the _Person_.  There is a difference.  Thus, there can be no appeal to ignorance of the first clause, which explains the Intent and Purpose of why it is necessary and proper.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _“People”_ is the plural form of _“person”_.  If there was only one individual to whom the Second Amendment applied, then it would be properly written _“…the right of the person…”_.  But there's more than one.  Last I knew, the number was on the order of about three hundred million *people*.
Click to expand...

no, dear; the security of a free State may involve the _coercive use of force_ to accomplish that end.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.
> 
> What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _
> The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,_* the right of the people*_ to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."_
> 
> _The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces._
> 
> You'll notice the people have the right to keep and bear arms, not only the militia.
> A big NO to your suggestion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is not the point; the point is that the _People_ is not the _Person_.  There is a difference.  Thus, there can be no appeal to ignorance of the first clause, which explains the Intent and Purpose of why it is necessary and proper.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> That is not the point; the point is that the *_*People*_* is not the *_*Person*_*.
> *
> I'm wondering what is your definition of "the People" and "the Person"?
Click to expand...

did you miss it?  one is collective and one is Individual.


----------



## Pete7469

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.
> 
> What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?



I would say you are weapons grade stupid.

When a person can only be armed through government permission, they have no rights. The entire concept of your post means that the right OF THE PEOPLE to be armed is predicated on their subservience to government and only a blithering idiot or a criminally insane totalitarian sociopath would promote such an idea.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

danielpalos said:


> yes, dear; it is.



  I very much doubt that there is anyone in this forum with whom you have any sort of relationship such that it is appropriate to address any such person as _“dear”_.  In  my case, the term would be appropriate only to or from female relatives close friends or acquaintances, such as my wife, my mother, my sister, my niece, a few assorted cousins, and a few close friends.  Certainly not some light-loafered stranger on an internet forum.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.
> 
> What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _
> The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,_* the right of the people*_ to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."_
> 
> _The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces._
> 
> You'll notice the people have the right to keep and bear arms, not only the militia.
> A big NO to your suggestion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is not the point; the point is that the _People_ is not the _Person_.  There is a difference.  Thus, there can be no appeal to ignorance of the first clause, which explains the Intent and Purpose of why it is necessary and proper.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> That is not the point; the point is that the *_*People*_* is not the *_*Person*_*.
> *
> I'm wondering what is your definition of "the People" and "the Person"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> did you miss it?  one is collective and one is Individual.
Click to expand...


So you don't have the actual definitions?


----------



## M14 Shooter

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The right of each individual free person to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That's how an individualist amendment would be written. You don't include anything about a militia or national security. You don't use a collective term. You don't qualify it in any way.
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> If you believe otherwise, you are either ignorant of the issue or are lying to yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See, the problem with that can be stated in one question: if it's unconnected with the militia, then why does the text connect it with the militia?
Click to expand...

Please feel free to read the full explanation:
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER


----------



## Pete7469

Pete7469 said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> I very much doubt that there is anyone in this forum with whom you have any sort of relationship such that it is appropriate to address any such person as _“dear”_.  In  my case, the term would be appropriate only to or from female relatives close friends or acquaintances, such as my wife, my mother, my sister, my niece, a few assorted cousins, and a few close friends.  Certainly not some light-loafered stranger on an internet forum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know why most people ignore you bed wetter?
> 
> It is because you have not posted a moderately useful response to anything.
> 
> It's time for you to have a retroactive self abortion. The second amendment has been solidified by the SCOTUS who has also solidified obozocare yet you're still creating a horrid ammonia smell in the basement.
> 
> Your insipid insults impress no one. I suggest a large dose of sleeping pills and alcohol in a swimming pool.
Click to expand...



Sorry Bob, this wasn't supposed to be directed at you and for some reason I can't delete it.


----------



## danielpalos

Bob Blaylock said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes, dear; it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I very much doubt that there is anyone in this forum with whom you have any sort of relationship such that it is appropriate to address any such person as _“dear”_.  In  my case, the term would be appropriate only to or from female relatives close friends or acquaintances, such as my wife, my mother, my sister, my niece, a few assorted cousins, and a few close friends.  Certainly not some light-loafered stranger on an internet forum.
Click to expand...

how special of you, dear.  any Thing more than diversion or do you now realize, you don't have a clue or a Cause.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.
> 
> What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _
> The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,_* the right of the people*_ to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."_
> 
> _The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces._
> 
> You'll notice the people have the right to keep and bear arms, not only the militia.
> A big NO to your suggestion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is not the point; the point is that the _People_ is not the _Person_.  There is a difference.  Thus, there can be no appeal to ignorance of the first clause, which explains the Intent and Purpose of why it is necessary and proper.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> That is not the point; the point is that the *_*People*_* is not the *_*Person*_*.
> *
> I'm wondering what is your definition of "the People" and "the Person"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> did you miss it?  one is collective and one is Individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you don't have the actual definitions?
Click to expand...

anything more than diversion?  one is _Collective_ and one is _Individual_.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> _The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,_* the right of the people*_ to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."_
> 
> _The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces._
> 
> You'll notice the people have the right to keep and bear arms, not only the militia.
> A big NO to your suggestion.
> 
> 
> 
> That is not the point; the point is that the _People_ is not the _Person_.  There is a difference.  Thus, there can be no appeal to ignorance of the first clause, which explains the Intent and Purpose of why it is necessary and proper.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> That is not the point; the point is that the *_*People*_* is not the *_*Person*_*.
> *
> I'm wondering what is your definition of "the People" and "the Person"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> did you miss it?  one is collective and one is Individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you don't have the actual definitions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> anything more than diversion?  one is _Collective_ and one is _Individual_.
Click to expand...


Excellent! Since the collective peoples have the right to keep and bear arms, the individuals who make up the collective have the right to keep and bear arms.

I'm glad you're on the right page.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not the point; the point is that the _People_ is not the _Person_.  There is a difference.  Thus, there can be no appeal to ignorance of the first clause, which explains the Intent and Purpose of why it is necessary and proper.
> 
> 
> 
> *That is not the point; the point is that the *_*People*_* is not the *_*Person*_*.*
> I'm wondering what is your definition of "the People" and "the Person"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> did you miss it?  one is collective and one is Individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't have the actual definitions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> anything more than diversion?  one is _Collective_ and one is _Individual_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Excellent! Since the collective peoples have the right to keep and bear arms, the individuals who make up the collective have the right to keep and bear arms.
> I'm glad you're on the right page.
Click to expand...

I love how anti-gun loons prattle on about this like it hasn't been settled.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not the point; the point is that the _People_ is not the _Person_.  There is a difference.  Thus, there can be no appeal to ignorance of the first clause, which explains the Intent and Purpose of why it is necessary and proper.
> 
> 
> 
> *
> That is not the point; the point is that the *_*People*_* is not the *_*Person*_*.
> *
> I'm wondering what is your definition of "the People" and "the Person"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> did you miss it?  one is collective and one is Individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you don't have the actual definitions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> anything more than diversion?  one is _Collective_ and one is _Individual_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excellent! Since the collective peoples have the right to keep and bear arms, the individuals who make up the collective have the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> I'm glad you're on the right page.
Click to expand...

Except, you cannot appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose, which Also, has a Collective term and not an Individual term.  are we on the same page and text, now?


----------



## danielpalos

M14 Shooter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *That is not the point; the point is that the *_*People*_* is not the *_*Person*_*.*
> I'm wondering what is your definition of "the People" and "the Person"?
> 
> 
> 
> did you miss it?  one is collective and one is Individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't have the actual definitions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> anything more than diversion?  one is _Collective_ and one is _Individual_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Excellent! Since the collective peoples have the right to keep and bear arms, the individuals who make up the collective have the right to keep and bear arms.
> I'm glad you're on the right page.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I love how anti-gun loons prattle on about this like it hasn't been settled.
Click to expand...

That opinion was a simple waste of the Peoples tax monies and settled nothing and Only accomplished a political passion of the moment through venue shopping.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law as a privilege or immunity in our Republic.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *That is not the point; the point is that the *_*People*_* is not the *_*Person*_*.
> *
> I'm wondering what is your definition of "the People" and "the Person"?
> 
> 
> 
> did you miss it?  one is collective and one is Individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you don't have the actual definitions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> anything more than diversion?  one is _Collective_ and one is _Individual_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excellent! Since the collective peoples have the right to keep and bear arms, the individuals who make up the collective have the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> I'm glad you're on the right page.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except, you cannot appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose, which Also, has a Collective term and not an Individual term.  are we on the same page and text, now?
Click to expand...


I agree, I cannot appeal to your ignorance.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> did you miss it?  one is collective and one is Individual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't have the actual definitions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> anything more than diversion?  one is _Collective_ and one is _Individual_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excellent! Since the collective peoples have the right to keep and bear arms, the individuals who make up the collective have the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> I'm glad you're on the right page.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except, you cannot appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose, which Also, has a Collective term and not an Individual term.  are we on the same page and text, now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree, I cannot appeal to your ignorance.
Click to expand...

which ignorance is that, dear.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't have the actual definitions?
> 
> 
> 
> anything more than diversion?  one is _Collective_ and one is _Individual_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excellent! Since the collective peoples have the right to keep and bear arms, the individuals who make up the collective have the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> I'm glad you're on the right page.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except, you cannot appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose, which Also, has a Collective term and not an Individual term.  are we on the same page and text, now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree, I cannot appeal to your ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> which ignorance is that, dear.
Click to expand...


That somehow the 2A doesn't apply to individuals.


----------



## M14 Shooter

*Would you be willing to accept this Second Amendment compromise?*

So....  where's the compromise?
What do we get in return for agreeing to give up some of our rights?


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> anything more than diversion?  one is _Collective_ and one is _Individual_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent! Since the collective peoples have the right to keep and bear arms, the individuals who make up the collective have the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> I'm glad you're on the right page.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except, you cannot appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose, which Also, has a Collective term and not an Individual term.  are we on the same page and text, now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree, I cannot appeal to your ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> which ignorance is that, dear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That somehow the 2A doesn't apply to individuals.
Click to expand...

You misunderstand the like usual, dear; our Second Article of Amendment specifically prefers well regulated militias of Individuals of the People.


----------



## danielpalos

dears; there can be No Compromise regarding our supreme law of the land, should well regulated militias of the People, need to faithfully execute the laws of the land.

Only well regulated militias of the People of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> anything more than diversion?  one is _Collective_ and one is _Individual_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent! Since the collective peoples have the right to keep and bear arms, the individuals who make up the collective have the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> I'm glad you're on the right page.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except, you cannot appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose, which Also, has a Collective term and not an Individual term.  are we on the same page and text, now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree, I cannot appeal to your ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> which ignorance is that, dear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That somehow the 2A doesn't apply to individuals.
Click to expand...

She's rejected reality and substituted her own.   
No need to take her posts seriously.


----------



## danielpalos

M14 Shooter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent! Since the collective peoples have the right to keep and bear arms, the individuals who make up the collective have the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> I'm glad you're on the right page.
> 
> 
> 
> Except, you cannot appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose, which Also, has a Collective term and not an Individual term.  are we on the same page and text, now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree, I cannot appeal to your ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> which ignorance is that, dear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That somehow the 2A doesn't apply to individuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She's rejected reality and substituted her own.
> No need to take her posts seriously.
Click to expand...

still nothing but fallacy for your Cause; how really really serious for your Cause is that, in the public domain.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent! Since the collective peoples have the right to keep and bear arms, the individuals who make up the collective have the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> I'm glad you're on the right page.
> 
> 
> 
> Except, you cannot appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose, which Also, has a Collective term and not an Individual term.  are we on the same page and text, now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree, I cannot appeal to your ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> which ignorance is that, dear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That somehow the 2A doesn't apply to individuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You misunderstand the like usual, dear; our Second Article of Amendment specifically prefers well regulated militias of Individuals of the People.
Click to expand...


*You misunderstand the like usual, dear;*

When Ed says that, he sounds stupid, you just sound gay.

*our Second Article of Amendment specifically prefers well regulated militias of Individuals of the People*

Yes, it specifically notes that individuals have the right to keep and bear arms.


----------



## danielpalos

no dear, it doesn't.  the terms are _militia_, and the _People_.  

both terms are _collective_ not _Individual_.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You misunderstand the like usual, dear; our Second Article of Amendment specifically prefers well regulated militias of Individuals of the People.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *You misunderstand the like usual, dear;*
> 
> When Ed says that, he sounds stupid, you just sound gay./QUOTE]
> 
> He sounds both.
Click to expand...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> no dear, it doesn't.  the terms are _militia_, and the _People_.
> 
> both terms are _collective_ not _Individual_.



And yet, individual people have the right, despite your ignorance.


----------



## danielpalos

Natural rights are secured in State Constitutions; which includes the right to acquire and possess private property in the class called Arms.


----------



## Ringel05

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.
> 
> What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?


Wonder how I missed this one.  During the colonial and post revolution eras militias were not "organized" in the sense you're trying to portray.  Every male between the ages of 16 and 65 (barring clergy and magistrates) were considered a part of their local militia, some drilled, some did not.  All were required to purchase a suitable long arm and accouterments, weapons stored in the very few armories that existed (mainly in larger more wealthy towns) were there for those who could not afford to purchase firearms, as storage for canon, shot and powder to be issued though in most cases each individual was also responsible for owning specific amounts of shot and powder to be kept in their homes.  People were expected how to use a firearm and most did know as they were used fairly extensively primarily for hunting even by some in the larger cities and towns who would hunt outside of town for personal and commercial consumption.  
In some locals the firearms in the armories were kept to be sold on a payment plan to those who could not afford one on their own and pay outright, once sold it did not remain in the armory.


----------



## danielpalos

dear gun lovers,

not _All_ of the Militia of the United States is well regulated even as Individuals. 

_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._


----------



## danielpalos

Thus, Only well regulated militias of the People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.


----------



## danielpalos

"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_


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> dear gun lovers,
> 
> not _All_ of the Militia of the United States is well regulated even as Individuals.
> 
> _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._



*not *_*All*_* of the Militia of the United States is well regulated even as Individuals.*

The level of regulation doesn't impact the right to bear arms.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Thus, Only well regulated militias of the People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.



*the right*_ of the people to keep and bear arms _*shall not be infringed*_._


----------



## danielpalos

Which Persons of the People, should there be Any need to quibble?

Only well regulated militias of the People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Which Persons of the People, should there be Any need to quibble?
> 
> Only well regulated militias of the People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.



All the persons. Even non-militia persons.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which Persons of the People, should there be Any need to quibble?
> 
> Only well regulated militias of the People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All the persons. Even non-militia persons.
Click to expand...

"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_


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which Persons of the People, should there be Any need to quibble?
> 
> Only well regulated militias of the People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All the persons. Even non-militia persons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "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, the whole people have the right.


----------



## BlackSand

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.
> 
> What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?



What exactly would you be willing to compromise in return for any of this bullshit?

.


----------



## westwall

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.
> 
> What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?







Not just no, but HELL no.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which Persons of the People, should there be Any need to quibble?
> 
> Only well regulated militias of the People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All the persons. Even non-militia persons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "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, the whole people have the right.
Click to expand...

dear; here is the relevant string of words regarding who has that right, should there be Any need to quibble in public venues:  Only well regulated militias of the People


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which Persons of the People, should there be Any need to quibble?
> 
> Only well regulated militias of the People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All the persons. Even non-militia persons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "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, the whole people have the right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear; here is the relevant string of words regarding who has that right, should there be Any need to quibble in public venues:  Only well regulated militias of the People
Click to expand...


_the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed._

Yup, all the people.


----------



## danielpalos

Only well regulated militias of the People.  should there be Any need to quibble in legal venues: _A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state_


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Only well regulated militias of the People.  should there be Any need to quibble in legal venues: _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.
_
Yup, all the people.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militias of the People.  should there be Any need to quibble in legal venues: _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.
> _
> Yup, all the people.
Click to expand...

There is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law, as a privilege and immunity in our _fine_ Republic.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militias of the People.  should there be Any need to quibble in legal venues: _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._
> Yup, all the people.
Click to expand...

You do know that she chooses to be wrong...?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militias of the People.  should there be Any need to quibble in legal venues: _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.
> _
> Yup, all the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law, as a privilege and immunity in our _fine_ Republic.
Click to expand...


I agree, I can't appeal to your ignorance.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militias of the People.  should there be Any need to quibble in legal venues: _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.
> _
> Yup, all the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law, as a privilege and immunity in our _fine_ Republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree, I can't appeal to your ignorance.
Click to expand...

what a coincidence, then, neither can you: _A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state_


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militias of the People.  should there be Any need to quibble in legal venues: _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.
> _
> Yup, all the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law, as a privilege and immunity in our _fine_ Republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree, I can't appeal to your ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what a coincidence, then, neither can you: _A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state_
Click to expand...


Yup, all the people.


----------



## danielpalos

which ignorance is that, dears: _A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state_


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> which ignorance is that, dears: _A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state_



Yup, every one of us.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> "The right of each individual free person to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That's how an individualist amendment would be written. You don't include anything about a militia or national security. You don't use a collective term. You don't qualify it in any way.
> 
> "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." That's what we have now. It specifies that this right of the people is secured because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. Your prior ownership of, and hopefully experience with, a gun will become important to national security if we ever have to call up the organized militia.
> 
> The problem with this amendment is that both sides are only reading half. The gun grabbers only read up to the comma while the gun nuts start reading there. What we need is a legal interpretation of the entire text. What I proposed in the OP was an amendment to clarify it and make this easier.



Yeah, I'll jump right in my time machine and go back and tell the Founding Fathers that the word "people" is just too murky and ambiguous, and the great literary genius, Pedro, who knows SOOO much more about framing laws than they do, has mapped out the linguistic pretzel they need to twist themselves into to keep him and his dipshit gun-grabbing brethren from being able to beat the dead horse of pretending the Second Amendment says something it doesn't _ad nauseam_.  Maybe I should also instruct them to draw a frigging picture for you, as well.

The problem with this Amendment is two-fold:  One, leftists are public-school-educated droolers who are functionally illiterate and couldn't diagram a sentence if their lives depended on it, let alone comprehend what the parts of the sentence do; and two, leftists are such dogmatic hacks, it wouldn't matter if they COULD understand what the Second Amendment says, because they don't WANT it to say that, and they are therefore determined to insist otherwise, in the face of all evidence, until they get their way.

You need only witness the dumbfuck OP demanding that we "compromise" - by which he means, "give him what he wants" - without ever considering giving us a reason why we SHOULD compromise, to see the truth of this.


----------



## Cecilie1200

danielpalos said:


> I am not sure what you mean; rights in private property, which includes the class called Arms, are secured in State Constitutions.



Yeah, it's also secured many other places, in many other ways.  Thank God for redundancy with disingenuous fucknuts like you desperately trying to steal people's rights for your warm fuzzies.


----------



## Pedro de San Patricio

Cecilie1200 said:


> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The right of each individual free person to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That's how an individualist amendment would be written. You don't include anything about a militia or national security. You don't use a collective term. You don't qualify it in any way.
> 
> "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." That's what we have now. It specifies that this right of the people is secured because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. Your prior ownership of, and hopefully experience with, a gun will become important to national security if we ever have to call up the organized militia.
> 
> The problem with this amendment is that both sides are only reading half. The gun grabbers only read up to the comma while the gun nuts start reading there. What we need is a legal interpretation of the entire text. What I proposed in the OP was an amendment to clarify it and make this easier.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I'll jump right in my time machine and go back and tell the Founding Fathers that the word "people" is just too murky and ambiguous, and the great literary genius, Pedro, who knows SOOO much more about framing laws than they do, has mapped out the linguistic pretzel they need to twist themselves into to keep him and his dipshit gun-grabbing brethren from being able to beat the dead horse of pretending the Second Amendment says something it doesn't _ad nauseam_.  Maybe I should also instruct them to draw a frigging picture for you, as well.
> 
> The problem with this Amendment is two-fold:  One, leftists are public-school-educated droolers who are functionally illiterate and couldn't diagram a sentence if their lives depended on it, let alone comprehend what the parts of the sentence do; and two, leftists are such dogmatic hacks, it wouldn't matter if they COULD understand what the Second Amendment says, because they don't WANT it to say that, and they are therefore determined to insist otherwise, in the face of all evidence, until they get their way.
> 
> You need only witness the dumbfuck OP demanding that we "compromise" - by which he means, "give him what he wants" - without ever considering giving us a reason why we SHOULD compromise, to see the truth of this.
Click to expand...

Okay. Let's start from scratch. You think that I'm trying to take your guns?


----------



## Pedro de San Patricio

Basically what I'm proposing is that enlistment in your local SDF be made part of the process for buying or owning a firearm. The requirements would be minimal and not much different than for buying the weapon itself. You can't have a felonious background or a history of violent mental instability. You have to be at least theoretically capable of defending your state if called upon to do so. Membership would entail regular training in safety, marksmanship, and practical drills such as for an active shooter situation. You benefit by the gun control side being rendered obsolete. The community benefits from the guarantee that the woman trying to play hero when someone starts randomly killing people has trained for that situation and probably won't hit a bystander. The only person who loses in that situation is the murderer.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> Basically what I'm proposing is that enlistment in your local SDF be made part of the process for buying or owning a firearm.


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.
I therefore do not accept your proposed compromise because I receive nothing in return for giving up part of my rights.


----------



## Pedro de San Patricio

M14 Shooter said:


> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Basically what I'm proposing is that enlistment in your local SDF be made part of the process for buying or owning a firearm.
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> I therefore do not accept your proposed compromise because I receive nothing in return for giving up part of my rights.
Click to expand...

Which is why an argument over the meaning broke out. The proposal entailed an amendment to clarify that. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state." You're not losing your guns from that. You're gaining permanent victory over those who would remove the right altogether and your community is gaining a guarantee that you'll be capable of using your guns safely for lawful purposes. I think my example of an active shooter situation works well. Let's use it here. You're at the bank when someone walks in and starts murdering people. You have your firearm on you. As it stands, I have no reason to believe you could do much good with it. You might even hit a bystander for all I know. If training for that sort of situation were a requirement, then I would know by the fact that you have it on you that there's a good chance you can hit him without missing and shooting me. I could have some measure of trust in your abilities.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Basically what I'm proposing is that enlistment in your local SDF be made part of the process for buying or owning a firearm.
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> I therefore do not accept your proposed compromise because I receive nothing in return for giving up part of my rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which is why an argument over the meaning broke out. The proposal entailed an amendment to clarify that.
Click to expand...

The meaning of the amendment has been clear for sometime now -- there's no need for your suggestion in order to clarity it.


> You're gaining permanent victory over those who would remove the right altogether and your community is gaining a guarantee that you'll be capable of using your guns safely for lawful purposes.


No one honestly believes that agreeing to your proposal will prevent further erosion of the right to arms - and so, I receive nothing in return for giving up part of my right.

Your compromise fails because it offers us nothing in return for something.


----------



## Pedro de San Patricio

M14 Shooter said:


> The meaning of the amendment has been clear for sometime now -- there's no need for your suggestion in order to clarity it.


If that were truly the case then almost everything in this thread would not have been posted...



M14 Shooter said:


> No one honestly believes that agreeing to your proposal will prevent further erosion of the right to arms - and so, I receive nothing in return for giving up part of my right.
> 
> Your compromise fails because it offers us nothing in return for something.


I could drive to the gas station right now and tell them that I honestly don't believe they'll give me a gallon of gas in exchange for $2.89. What would be the point of that, though? If this issue were clarified and your right were laid out in plain, unmistakable wording then there would be no way they could attack it using the text.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> The meaning of the amendment has been clear for sometime now -- there's no need for your suggestion in order to clarity it.
> 
> 
> 
> If that were truly the case then almost everything in this thread would not have been posted...
Click to expand...

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.
You do understand that this is not an opinion, it is settled law -- right?


> I could drive to the gas station right now and tell them that I honestly don't believe they'll give me a gallon of gas in exchange for $2.89....


Let me put it another way:
Nothing in your proposal prevents those who want to further restrict the rights of the law abiding from doing so.
Thus, I receive nothing in exchange for something; you offer not compromise, but capitulation..


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> which ignorance is that, dears: _A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, every one of us.
Click to expand...

why do you believe you are a _well regulated militia_ of the People instead of a _non-well regulated militia_ of the People; have you been mustering to become necessary to the security of a free State?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> which ignorance is that, dears: _A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, every one of us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why do you believe you are a _well regulated militia_ of the People instead of a _non-well regulated militia_ of the People; have you been mustering to become necessary to the security of a free State?
Click to expand...


I don't need to be a well regulated militia to exercise my right. Or a militia at all.

Militias are groovy, that's why my right to bear arms must not be infringed.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> which ignorance is that, dears: _A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, every one of us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why do you believe you are a _well regulated militia_ of the People instead of a _non-well regulated militia_ of the People; have you been mustering to become necessary to the security of a free State?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't need to be a well regulated militia to exercise my right. Or a militia at all.
> 
> Militias are groovy, that's why my right to bear arms must not be infringed.
Click to expand...

Which right is that?  _acquiring_ and _possessing_ Arms is not the same nor equivalent to keeping and bearing Arms for a State or the Union, but for a fraction of the law.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> which ignorance is that, dears: _A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, every one of us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why do you believe you are a _well regulated militia_ of the People instead of a _non-well regulated militia_ of the People; have you been mustering to become necessary to the security of a free State?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't need to be a well regulated militia to exercise my right. Or a militia at all.
> 
> Militias are groovy, that's why my right to bear arms must not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which right is that?  _acquiring_ and _possessing_ Arms is not the same nor equivalent to keeping and bearing Arms for a State or the Union, but for a fraction of the law.
Click to expand...


The individual right to keep and bear arms.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one honestly believes that agreeing to your proposal will prevent further erosion of the right to arms - and so, I receive nothing in return for giving up part of my right.
> 
> Your compromise fails because it offers us nothing in return for something.
> 
> 
> 
> I could drive to the gas station right now and tell them that I honestly don't believe they'll give me a gallon of gas in exchange for $2.89. What would be the point of that, though? If this issue were clarified and your right were laid out in plain, unmistakable wording then there would be no way they could attack it using the text.
Click to expand...


  There's a cliché about insanity being defined as doing what has been done before, and expecting a different result.

  I have no idea how many times I have bought gas.  Surely hundreds, and least, likely thousands.  I honestly cannot attest,without any doubt, to the fact that I received exactly as much gasoline as I paid for, based on the claimed sale price, but I can attest that there's never been a big enough discrepancy to catch my notice.  Every time, without fail, I've left with a full tank of gasoline, having been charged about the amount I expected.  There has never been a failure for this expectation to be met, that I would receive at least approximately the amount of gasoline for which I was paying.

  Based on past experience, and in accordance with the cliché, I would have to say that it would qualify as insanity to go to a gas station, and expect to be defrauded in the manner that you describe.

  You gungrabbing scumbags have a somewhat less reputable history.  Countless times, you've demanded certain new blatantly-unconstitutional restrictions on our right to keep and bear arms, and have promised that certain further violations were not forthcoming, only to go on to demand those further violations.  For anyone now to believe anyone on your side, when you claim that you'll be satisfied with any particular new violation of our rights, and not push for more, would be insanity.


----------



## Pedro de San Patricio

How exactly am I trying to grab your guns by amending the amendment to clearly and incontrovertibly state your right to own them?


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> How exactly am I trying to grab your guns by amending the amendment to clearly and incontrovertibly state your right to own them?



  You're not fooling anyone.

  The Constitution already does that.


----------



## Muhammed

JoeB131 said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not happening, we have you anti gun loons by the short hairs with the 2nd as it is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Utnil the next time one of you loons shoots up a school or a church and people finally get fed up with your shit.
Click to expand...

It's you Democrat loons who are against security. If you don't wan't guns then don't buy them, DAN.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> which ignorance is that, dears: _A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, every one of us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why do you believe you are a _well regulated militia_ of the People instead of a _non-well regulated militia_ of the People; have you been mustering to become necessary to the security of a free State?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't need to be a well regulated militia to exercise my right. Or a militia at all.
> 
> Militias are groovy, that's why my right to bear arms must not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which right is that?  _acquiring_ and _possessing_ Arms is not the same nor equivalent to keeping and bearing Arms for a State or the Union, but for a fraction of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The individual right to keep and bear arms.
Click to expand...

simple possession is already secured in State Constitutions, dears.

_All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy._


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, every one of us.
> 
> 
> 
> why do you believe you are a _well regulated militia_ of the People instead of a _non-well regulated militia_ of the People; have you been mustering to become necessary to the security of a free State?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't need to be a well regulated militia to exercise my right. Or a militia at all.
> 
> Militias are groovy, that's why my right to bear arms must not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which right is that?  _acquiring_ and _possessing_ Arms is not the same nor equivalent to keeping and bearing Arms for a State or the Union, but for a fraction of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The individual right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> simple possession is already secured in State Constitutions, dears.
> 
> _All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy._
Click to expand...


Possession is a right, the constitutions aren't necessary. But thanks anyway.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> why do you believe you are a _well regulated militia_ of the People instead of a _non-well regulated militia_ of the People; have you been mustering to become necessary to the security of a free State?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need to be a well regulated militia to exercise my right. Or a militia at all.
> 
> Militias are groovy, that's why my right to bear arms must not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which right is that?  _acquiring_ and _possessing_ Arms is not the same nor equivalent to keeping and bearing Arms for a State or the Union, but for a fraction of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The individual right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> simple possession is already secured in State Constitutions, dears.
> 
> _All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Possession is a right, the constitutions aren't necessary. But thanks anyway.
Click to expand...

that is so special, dear.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need to be a well regulated militia to exercise my right. Or a militia at all.
> 
> Militias are groovy, that's why my right to bear arms must not be infringed.
> 
> 
> 
> Which right is that?  _acquiring_ and _possessing_ Arms is not the same nor equivalent to keeping and bearing Arms for a State or the Union, but for a fraction of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The individual right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> simple possession is already secured in State Constitutions, dears.
> 
> _All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Possession is a right, the constitutions aren't necessary. But thanks anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is so special, dear.
Click to expand...


Are you half a fag, or what?


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which right is that?  _acquiring_ and _possessing_ Arms is not the same nor equivalent to keeping and bearing Arms for a State or the Union, but for a fraction of the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The individual right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> simple possession is already secured in State Constitutions, dears.
> 
> _All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Possession is a right, the constitutions aren't necessary. But thanks anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is so special, dear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you half a fag, or what?
Click to expand...

are you full of fallacy or what?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no language denoting Individual rights in our Second Article of Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _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...
> 
> This is what I was talking about.
> 
> The liberal reading: _A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state_
> The conservative reading: _the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed_
> The actual text: _A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed._
> 
> The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state
Click to expand...

That is NOT what the sentence says. An \English Professor already broke the sentence down. It says the right of the people shall not be infringed and lists as one of many POSSIBLE reasons a Militia.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> I'm taking the Second Amendment at its word as to its meaning. It says that we can own guns because the militia needs to have guns.



That is not what it says at all, and SCOTUS recently corrected that erroneous and short-lived mid-20th Century Leftist notion.

Give it up Democrats.  You have been rendered impotent on this issue.


----------



## danielpalos

RetiredGySgt said:


> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no language denoting Individual rights in our Second Article of Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _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...
> 
> This is what I was talking about.
> 
> The liberal reading: _A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state_
> The conservative reading: _the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed_
> The actual text: _A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed._
> 
> The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is NOT what the sentence says. An \English Professor already broke the sentence down. It says the right of the people shall not be infringed and lists as one of many POSSIBLE reasons a Militia.
Click to expand...

It says, a well regulated militia of the People is necessary to the security of a free State, and that is why the People (who are a well regulated militia) may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

It really is that simple; except to the clueless and Causeless, right.


----------



## danielpalos

Billy_Kinetta said:


> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm taking the Second Amendment at its word as to its meaning. It says that we can own guns because the militia needs to have guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what it says at all, and SCOTUS recently corrected that erroneous and short-lived mid-20th Century Leftist notion.
> 
> Give it up Democrats.  You have been rendered impotent on this issue.
Click to expand...

yes, it is what it says; and, there is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law as a privilege or immunity in our _fine_ and _glorious_, Republic.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> How exactly am I trying to grab your guns by amending the amendment to clearly and incontrovertibly state your right to own them?


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.
You do understand that this is not an opinion, it is settled law -- right?

Nothing in your proposal prevents those who want to further restrict the rights of the law abiding from doing so.
Thus, I receive nothing in exchange for something; you offer not compromise, but capitulation..


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

danielpalos said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm taking the Second Amendment at its word as to its meaning. It says that we can own guns because the militia needs to have guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what it says at all, and SCOTUS recently corrected that erroneous and short-lived mid-20th Century Leftist notion.
> 
> Give it up Democrats.  You have been rendered impotent on this issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, it is what it says; and, there is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law as a privilege or immunity in our _fine_ and _glorious_, Republic.
Click to expand...


Fine.  Produce writings from the Founding Fathers indicating it is so.  We'll wait.


----------



## danielpalos

Billy_Kinetta said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm taking the Second Amendment at its word as to its meaning. It says that we can own guns because the militia needs to have guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what it says at all, and SCOTUS recently corrected that erroneous and short-lived mid-20th Century Leftist notion.
> 
> Give it up Democrats.  You have been rendered impotent on this issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, it is what it says; and, there is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law as a privilege or immunity in our _fine_ and _glorious_, Republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fine.  Produce writings from the Founding Fathers indicating it is so.  We'll wait.
Click to expand...

Our Second Amendment was produced by our Founding Fathers;  there is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law as a privilege or immunity in our fine and glorious, Republic.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

danielpalos said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm taking the Second Amendment at its word as to its meaning. It says that we can own guns because the militia needs to have guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what it says at all, and SCOTUS recently corrected that erroneous and short-lived mid-20th Century Leftist notion.
> 
> Give it up Democrats.  You have been rendered impotent on this issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, it is what it says; and, there is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law as a privilege or immunity in our _fine_ and _glorious_, Republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fine.  Produce writings from the Founding Fathers indicating it is so.  We'll wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment was produced by our Founding Fathers;  there is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law as a privilege or immunity in our fine and glorious, Republic.
Click to expand...


That does not produce the requested documentation, so off you go.


----------



## danielpalos

Billy_Kinetta said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm taking the Second Amendment at its word as to its meaning. It says that we can own guns because the militia needs to have guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what it says at all, and SCOTUS recently corrected that erroneous and short-lived mid-20th Century Leftist notion.
> 
> Give it up Democrats.  You have been rendered impotent on this issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, it is what it says; and, there is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law as a privilege or immunity in our _fine_ and _glorious_, Republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fine.  Produce writings from the Founding Fathers indicating it is so.  We'll wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment was produced by our Founding Fathers;  there is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law as a privilege or immunity in our fine and glorious, Republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That does not produce the requested documentation, so off you go.
Click to expand...

Dude; the Intent and Purpose is in the first clause in our Second Article of Amendment.  There is no appeal to ignorance of that Intent and Purpose as a privilege and immunity for Persons in our fine and glorious Republic.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

Your repetition of ignorance merely multiplies it.


----------



## danielpalos

Billy_Kinetta said:


> Your repetition of ignorance merely multiplies it.


Which ignorance is that.  

Here it is again, in "color by numbers" simplicity, for your ease and convenience, simply to work on my attitude and character and be a Good socialist instead of a lousy socialist or even worse capitalist.

"A _well regulated Militia_, being necessary to the security of a free State"

The Intent and Purpose is in the first clause in our Second Article of Amendment. There is no appeal to ignorance of that Intent and Purpose as a privilege and immunity for Persons in our fine and glorious Republic.

There are no _Individual_ rights in private property secured by our Second Article of Amendment; no amount of legislation from the bench can change the actual meaning of the string of words that comprises It since Only our federal Congress may write words on formerly blank pieces of paper and have them enacted as laws in our fine and glorious Republic, outside of an amendment.


----------



## danielpalos

Which ignorance is that in the public domain, Todd?


----------



## danielpalos

I would like to take this time and opportunity to thank those of the opposing view for having no clue, no Cause, and no Standing as a result.


----------



## koshergrl

Nope. No. Never.


----------



## ChrisL

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> NOpe.
> 
> Any attempt to raise the cost of gun ownership is a restriction on a important Right.
> 
> 
> 
> If the whole point of the amendment is arming the militia, then shouldn't we be barring those incapable of entering the militia to have one? Think about the kind of person who couldn't even join a volunteer irregular military-lite.
Click to expand...



No.  There is also the right to self defense that you are ignoring.  If you have ever read some of the federalist papers, you would see that this was a very important component of the 2nd amendment. 

“O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone; and you have no longer an aristocratical, no longer a democratical spirit. Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all?” – Speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778; “Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution,” Jonathan Elliot, editor, vol. 3, pp. 50-53

“Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?” – _Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution_, Jonathan Elliot, ed. 1836, vol. 3, p.168

“The great object is, that every man be armed … Every one who is able may have a gun.”– _Debates in the Several State Conventions on Adoption of the Federal Constitution_, Jonathan Elliot, ed. 1836_,_ vol. 3, p. 386


----------



## danielpalos

Only well regulated militias of the People are declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the People who are the non-well regulated militia of the People.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

danielpalos said:


> Only well regulated militias of the People are declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the People who are the non-well regulated militia of the People.



So produce the documentation I asked for yesterday.  It should be an easy thing for you.


----------



## danielpalos

Billy_Kinetta said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militias of the People are declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the People who are the non-well regulated militia of the People.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So produce the documentation I asked for yesterday.  It should be an easy thing for you.
Click to expand...

Here it is, for your ease and convenience:

_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._

10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes

_(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia._

A well regulated militia must be an organized militia that musters, to prove it.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Billy_Kinetta said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militias of the People are declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the People who are the non-well regulated militia of the People.
> 
> 
> 
> So produce the documentation I asked for yesterday.  It should be an easy thing for you.
Click to expand...

You will receive none, for no such documentation exists.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

danielpalos said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militias of the People are declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the People who are the non-well regulated militia of the People.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So produce the documentation I asked for yesterday.  It should be an easy thing for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here it is, for your ease and convenience:
> 
> _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._
> 
> 10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes
> 
> _(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
> 
> (b) The classes of the militia are—
> 
> (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
> 
> (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia._
> 
> A well regulated militia must be an organized militia that musters, to prove it.
Click to expand...


That is not the documentation I requested.

Try again.


----------



## danielpalos

M14 Shooter said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militias of the People are declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the People who are the non-well regulated militia of the People.
> 
> 
> 
> So produce the documentation I asked for yesterday.  It should be an easy thing for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You will receive none, for no such documentation exists.
Click to expand...

A definitive answer is in post number 324.


----------



## danielpalos

Billy_Kinetta said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militias of the People are declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the People who are the non-well regulated militia of the People.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So produce the documentation I asked for yesterday.  It should be an easy thing for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here it is, for your ease and convenience:
> 
> _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._
> 
> 10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes
> 
> _(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
> 
> (b) The classes of the militia are—
> 
> (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
> 
> (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia._
> 
> A well regulated militia must be an organized militia that musters, to prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not the documentation I requested.
> 
> Try again.
Click to expand...

I don't have to try again; that is my legal argument; any questions?


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

danielpalos said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militias of the People are declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the People who are the non-well regulated militia of the People.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So produce the documentation I asked for yesterday.  It should be an easy thing for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here it is, for your ease and convenience:
> 
> _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._
> 
> 10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes
> 
> _(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
> 
> (b) The classes of the militia are—
> 
> (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
> 
> (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia._
> 
> A well regulated militia must be an organized militia that musters, to prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not the documentation I requested.
> 
> Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't have to try again; that is my legal argument; any questions?
Click to expand...


Why would I question your failure?  You are completely entitled to it.


----------



## danielpalos

Billy_Kinetta said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militias of the People are declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the People who are the non-well regulated militia of the People.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So produce the documentation I asked for yesterday.  It should be an easy thing for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here it is, for your ease and convenience:
> 
> _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._
> 
> 10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes
> 
> _(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
> 
> (b) The classes of the militia are—
> 
> (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
> 
> (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia._
> 
> A well regulated militia must be an organized militia that musters, to prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not the documentation I requested.
> 
> Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't have to try again; that is my legal argument; any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would I question your failure?  You are completely entitled to it.
Click to expand...

which failure is that; you are the one with nothing but fallacy for your Cause.

either get a clue and a Cause or lose any credibility and Standing.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militias of the People are declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the People who are the non-well regulated militia of the People.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So produce the documentation I asked for yesterday.  It should be an easy thing for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here it is, for your ease and convenience:
> 
> _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._
> 
> 10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes
> 
> _(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
> 
> (b) The classes of the militia are—
> 
> (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
> 
> (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia._
> 
> A well regulated militia must be an organized militia that musters, to prove it.
Click to expand...


Militias are cool. Of course they in no way restrict the right to keep and bear arms.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militias of the People are declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the People who are the non-well regulated militia of the People.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So produce the documentation I asked for yesterday.  It should be an easy thing for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here it is, for your ease and convenience:
> 
> _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._
> 
> 10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes
> 
> _(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
> 
> (b) The classes of the militia are—
> 
> (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
> 
> (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia._
> 
> A well regulated militia must be an organized militia that musters, to prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Militias are cool. Of course they in no way restrict the right to keep and bear arms.
Click to expand...

Of course they do; Ask the South.  Only _well regulated militias of the United States_ many not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militias of the People are declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the People who are the non-well regulated militia of the People.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So produce the documentation I asked for yesterday.  It should be an easy thing for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here it is, for your ease and convenience:
> 
> _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._
> 
> 10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes
> 
> _(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
> 
> (b) The classes of the militia are—
> 
> (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
> 
> (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia._
> 
> A well regulated militia must be an organized militia that musters, to prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Militias are cool. Of course they in no way restrict the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course they do
Click to expand...


You are outvoted by the Constitution, the SCOTUS, all fifty states, 300,000,000+ firearms in the hands of 100,000,000+ citizens, and history.

Go and grovel happily in your fantasy.


----------



## ChrisL

danielpalos said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militias of the People are declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the People who are the non-well regulated militia of the People.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So produce the documentation I asked for yesterday.  It should be an easy thing for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here it is, for your ease and convenience:
> 
> _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._
> 
> 10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes
> 
> _(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
> 
> (b) The classes of the militia are—
> 
> (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
> 
> (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia._
> 
> A well regulated militia must be an organized militia that musters, to prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not the documentation I requested.
> 
> Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't have to try again; that is my legal argument; any questions?
Click to expand...


You haven't really made any arguments, sorry to say.  Just more of the same mumbo jumbo, words thrown together in the form of a poorly constructed sentence.  Your posts about every subject are all pretty much the same.  What is wrong with you anyway?


----------



## ChrisL

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militias of the People are declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the People who are the non-well regulated militia of the People.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So produce the documentation I asked for yesterday.  It should be an easy thing for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here it is, for your ease and convenience:
> 
> _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._
> 
> 10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes
> 
> _(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
> 
> (b) The classes of the militia are—
> 
> (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
> 
> (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia._
> 
> A well regulated militia must be an organized militia that musters, to prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Militias are cool. Of course they in no way restrict the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course they do; Ask the South.  Only _well regulated militias of the United States_ many not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union
Click to expand...


Are you insane?  I'm seriously wondering.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.
> 
> What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?




No.

the right to bear arms is NOT modified by the language describing one of the needs for it.

So what you offer is not a "compromise."  It is a capitulation of the RIGHT that pre-existed the Constitution itself.

I offer an alternative compromise.  Let us AMEND the Second Amendment to get rid of the prefatory "militia" clause.  The entire Amendment would then read with no alleged ambiguity, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militias of the People are declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the People who are the non-well regulated militia of the People.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So produce the documentation I asked for yesterday.  It should be an easy thing for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here it is, for your ease and convenience:
> 
> _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._
> 
> 10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes
> 
> _(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
> 
> (b) The classes of the militia are—
> 
> (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
> 
> (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia._
> 
> A well regulated militia must be an organized militia that musters, to prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Militias are cool. Of course they in no way restrict the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course they do; Ask the South.  Only _well regulated militias of the United States_ many not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union
Click to expand...

*
Of course they do
*
If only you had 2nd Amendment backup for your feeling.


----------



## danielpalos

Billy_Kinetta said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militias of the People are declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the People who are the non-well regulated militia of the People.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So produce the documentation I asked for yesterday.  It should be an easy thing for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here it is, for your ease and convenience:
> 
> _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._
> 
> 10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes
> 
> _(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
> 
> (b) The classes of the militia are—
> 
> (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
> 
> (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia._
> 
> A well regulated militia must be an organized militia that musters, to prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Militias are cool. Of course they in no way restrict the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course they do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are outvoted by the Constitution, the SCOTUS, all fifty states, 300,000,000+ firearms in the hands of 100,000,000+ citizens, and history.
> 
> Go and grovel happily in your fantasy.
Click to expand...

Which fantasy is that?  

acquire and possess, simple possession, is secured in State Constitutions with that terminology.  

Keep and bear is not the same as simple possession; for Anyone.  Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

Individual felons of the People are being denied and disparaged, simple possession of Arms, every day.


----------



## danielpalos

ChrisL said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militias of the People are declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the People who are the non-well regulated militia of the People.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So produce the documentation I asked for yesterday.  It should be an easy thing for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here it is, for your ease and convenience:
> 
> _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._
> 
> 10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes
> 
> _(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
> 
> (b) The classes of the militia are—
> 
> (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
> 
> (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia._
> 
> A well regulated militia must be an organized militia that musters, to prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not the documentation I requested.
> 
> Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't have to try again; that is my legal argument; any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You haven't really made any arguments, sorry to say.  Just more of the same mumbo jumbo, words thrown together in the form of a poorly constructed sentence.  Your posts about every subject are all pretty much the same.  What is wrong with you anyway?
Click to expand...

dear; you are welcome to get a clue and a Cause.

i have a clue and a Cause; unlike those of the opposing view.


----------



## danielpalos

ChrisL said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militias of the People are declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the People who are the non-well regulated militia of the People.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So produce the documentation I asked for yesterday.  It should be an easy thing for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here it is, for your ease and convenience:
> 
> _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._
> 
> 10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes
> 
> _(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
> 
> (b) The classes of the militia are—
> 
> (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
> 
> (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia._
> 
> A well regulated militia must be an organized militia that musters, to prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Militias are cool. Of course they in no way restrict the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course they do; Ask the South.  Only _well regulated militias of the United States_ many not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you insane?  I'm seriously wondering.
Click to expand...

well, keep wondering dear, until you acquire and possess a doctorate and we can go over this again.

you have to check for fallacies; or, you are simply engaging in hearsay and soothsay.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militias of the People are declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the People who are the non-well regulated militia of the People.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So produce the documentation I asked for yesterday.  It should be an easy thing for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here it is, for your ease and convenience:
> 
> _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._
> 
> 10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes
> 
> _(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
> 
> (b) The classes of the militia are—
> 
> (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
> 
> (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia._
> 
> A well regulated militia must be an organized militia that musters, to prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Militias are cool. Of course they in no way restrict the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course they do; Ask the South.  Only _well regulated militias of the United States_ many not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Of course they do
> *
> If only you had 2nd Amendment backup for your feeling.
Click to expand...

dear, if only you had valid strings of words instead of just feelings to back up your arguments; why did Persons of the South not simply claim they have a Second Amendment right to keep and bear Arms, when the North came to deny and disparage them in their keeping and bearing of Arms.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

danielpalos said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> So produce the documentation I asked for yesterday.  It should be an easy thing for you.
> 
> 
> 
> Here it is, for your ease and convenience:
> 
> _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._
> 
> 10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes
> 
> _(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
> 
> (b) The classes of the militia are—
> 
> (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
> 
> (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia._
> 
> A well regulated militia must be an organized militia that musters, to prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Militias are cool. Of course they in no way restrict the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course they do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are outvoted by the Constitution, the SCOTUS, all fifty states, 300,000,000+ firearms in the hands of 100,000,000+ citizens, and history.
> 
> Go and grovel happily in your fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which fantasy is that?
> 
> acquire and possess, simple possession, is secured in State Constitutions with that terminology.
> 
> Keep and bear is not the same as simple possession; for Anyone.  Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Individual felons of the People are being denied and disparaged, simple possession of Arms, every day.
Click to expand...


That is your MISunderstanding of what the Second Amendment says.


----------



## danielpalos

IlarMeilyr said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here it is, for your ease and convenience:
> 
> _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._
> 
> 10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes
> 
> _(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
> 
> (b) The classes of the militia are—
> 
> (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
> 
> (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia._
> 
> A well regulated militia must be an organized militia that musters, to prove it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Militias are cool. Of course they in no way restrict the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course they do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are outvoted by the Constitution, the SCOTUS, all fifty states, 300,000,000+ firearms in the hands of 100,000,000+ citizens, and history.
> 
> Go and grovel happily in your fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which fantasy is that?
> 
> acquire and possess, simple possession, is secured in State Constitutions with that terminology.
> 
> Keep and bear is not the same as simple possession; for Anyone.  Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Individual felons of the People are being denied and disparaged, simple possession of Arms, every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is your MISunderstanding of what the Second Amendment says.
Click to expand...

dear, simply claiming that is an appeal to ignorance and that form of _incompetence_ without any sound line of reasoning to back it up.

Keep and bear is not the same as simple possession; for Anyone.  Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> So produce the documentation I asked for yesterday.  It should be an easy thing for you.
> 
> 
> 
> Here it is, for your ease and convenience:
> 
> _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._
> 
> 10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes
> 
> _(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
> 
> (b) The classes of the militia are—
> 
> (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
> 
> (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia._
> 
> A well regulated militia must be an organized militia that musters, to prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Militias are cool. Of course they in no way restrict the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course they do; Ask the South.  Only _well regulated militias of the United States_ many not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Of course they do
> *
> If only you had 2nd Amendment backup for your feeling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, if only you had valid strings of words instead of just feelings to back up your arguments; why did Persons of the South not simply claim they have a Second Amendment right to keep and bear Arms, when the North came to deny and disparage them in their keeping and bearing of Arms.
Click to expand...


*why did Persons of the South not simply claim they have a Second Amendment right to keep and bear Arms,
*
They did have a Second Amendment right, so do I. Having nothing to do with membership in a militia.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

danielpalos said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Militias are cool. Of course they in no way restrict the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are outvoted by the Constitution, the SCOTUS, all fifty states, 300,000,000+ firearms in the hands of 100,000,000+ citizens, and history.
> 
> Go and grovel happily in your fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which fantasy is that?
> 
> acquire and possess, simple possession, is secured in State Constitutions with that terminology.
> 
> Keep and bear is not the same as simple possession; for Anyone.  Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Individual felons of the People are being denied and disparaged, simple possession of Arms, every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is your MISunderstanding of what the Second Amendment says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, simply claiming that is an appeal to ignorance and that form of _incompetence_ without any sound line of reasoning to back it up.
> 
> Keep and bear is not the same as simple possession; for Anyone.  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...



Wrong.  YOUR entire argument is an appeal FROM your abundant ignorance.

There is the RIGHT which predates the Constitution itself.  Then there is the Constitutional guarantee of that right which was phrased in a not entirely clear way.

YOU and your ilk INSIST that the prefatory phrase subsumes the entire right.  It simply does not.

You are historically, linguistically, logically, legally and intentionally wrong.

Caloric intake being necessary to sustain life, the RIGHT of the People to eat shall not be infringed.  According to your would-be logic, any food that isn't required to sustain life is not a food which we have right we have to consume.

But the RIGHT is to eat, not a limited right to eat only food that YOU and your dopey ilk deem caloric-ly important for us.  Take your nanny state mentality and shove it up your ass.


----------



## danielpalos

IlarMeilyr said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here it is, for your ease and convenience:
> 
> _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._
> 
> 10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes
> 
> _(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
> 
> (b) The classes of the militia are—
> 
> (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
> 
> (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia._
> 
> A well regulated militia must be an organized militia that musters, to prove it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Militias are cool. Of course they in no way restrict the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course they do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are outvoted by the Constitution, the SCOTUS, all fifty states, 300,000,000+ firearms in the hands of 100,000,000+ citizens, and history.
> 
> Go and grovel happily in your fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which fantasy is that?
> 
> acquire and possess, simple possession, is secured in State Constitutions with that terminology.
> 
> Keep and bear is not the same as simple possession; for Anyone.  Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Individual felons of the People are being denied and disparaged, simple possession of Arms, every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is your MISunderstanding of what the Second Amendment says.
Click to expand...

not at all; i have no "misunderstanding" of what our Second Article of Amendment says; unlike those of the opposing view.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here it is, for your ease and convenience:
> 
> _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._
> 
> 10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes
> 
> _(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
> 
> (b) The classes of the militia are—
> 
> (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
> 
> (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia._
> 
> A well regulated militia must be an organized militia that musters, to prove it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Militias are cool. Of course they in no way restrict the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course they do; Ask the South.  Only _well regulated militias of the United States_ many not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Of course they do
> *
> If only you had 2nd Amendment backup for your feeling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, if only you had valid strings of words instead of just feelings to back up your arguments; why did Persons of the South not simply claim they have a Second Amendment right to keep and bear Arms, when the North came to deny and disparage them in their keeping and bearing of Arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *why did Persons of the South not simply claim they have a Second Amendment right to keep and bear Arms,
> *
> They did have a Second Amendment right, so do I. Having nothing to do with membership in a militia.
Click to expand...

yet, both may be Infringed as was proved by Persons in the entire South; regardless of militia service.


----------



## danielpalos

IlarMeilyr said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they do
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are outvoted by the Constitution, the SCOTUS, all fifty states, 300,000,000+ firearms in the hands of 100,000,000+ citizens, and history.
> 
> Go and grovel happily in your fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which fantasy is that?
> 
> acquire and possess, simple possession, is secured in State Constitutions with that terminology.
> 
> Keep and bear is not the same as simple possession; for Anyone.  Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Individual felons of the People are being denied and disparaged, simple possession of Arms, every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is your MISunderstanding of what the Second Amendment says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, simply claiming that is an appeal to ignorance and that form of _incompetence_ without any sound line of reasoning to back it up.
> 
> Keep and bear is not the same as simple possession; for Anyone.  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...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  YOUR entire argument is an appeal FROM your abundant ignorance.
> 
> There is the RIGHT which predates the Constitution itself.  Then there is the Constitutional guarantee of that right which was phrased in a not entirely clear way.
> 
> YOU and your ilk INSIST that the prefatory phrase subsumes the entire right.  It simply does not.
> 
> You are historically, linguistically, logically, legally and intentionally wrong.
> 
> Caloric intake being necessary to sustain life, the RIGHT of the People to eat shall not be infringed.  According to your would-be logic, any food that isn't required to sustain life is not a food which we have right we have to consume.
> 
> But the RIGHT is to eat, not a limited right to eat only food that YOU and your dopey ilk deem caloric-ly important for us.  Take your nanny state mentality and shove it up your ass.
Click to expand...

dear; there is no appeal to ignorance of any written law; unless it is un-Constitutional.  Those of your point of view are simply too incompetent to understand the difference.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

danielpalos said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Militias are cool. Of course they in no way restrict the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are outvoted by the Constitution, the SCOTUS, all fifty states, 300,000,000+ firearms in the hands of 100,000,000+ citizens, and history.
> 
> Go and grovel happily in your fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which fantasy is that?
> 
> acquire and possess, simple possession, is secured in State Constitutions with that terminology.
> 
> Keep and bear is not the same as simple possession; for Anyone.  Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Individual felons of the People are being denied and disparaged, simple possession of Arms, every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is your MISunderstanding of what the Second Amendment says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not at all; i have no "misunderstanding" of what our Second Article of Amendment says; unlike those of the opposing view.
Click to expand...


Except that yes, you do.

And you remain flatly wrong, you hack.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

danielpalos said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are outvoted by the Constitution, the SCOTUS, all fifty states, 300,000,000+ firearms in the hands of 100,000,000+ citizens, and history.
> 
> Go and grovel happily in your fantasy.
> 
> 
> 
> Which fantasy is that?
> 
> acquire and possess, simple possession, is secured in State Constitutions with that terminology.
> 
> Keep and bear is not the same as simple possession; for Anyone.  Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Individual felons of the People are being denied and disparaged, simple possession of Arms, every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is your MISunderstanding of what the Second Amendment says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, simply claiming that is an appeal to ignorance and that form of _incompetence_ without any sound line of reasoning to back it up.
> 
> Keep and bear is not the same as simple possession; for Anyone.  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...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  YOUR entire argument is an appeal FROM your abundant ignorance.
> 
> There is the RIGHT which predates the Constitution itself.  Then there is the Constitutional guarantee of that right which was phrased in a not entirely clear way.
> 
> YOU and your ilk INSIST that the prefatory phrase subsumes the entire right.  It simply does not.
> 
> You are historically, linguistically, logically, legally and intentionally wrong.
> 
> Caloric intake being necessary to sustain life, the RIGHT of the People to eat shall not be infringed.  According to your would-be logic, any food that isn't required to sustain life is not a food which we have right we have to consume.
> 
> But the RIGHT is to eat, not a limited right to eat only food that YOU and your dopey ilk deem caloric-ly important for us.  Take your nanny state mentality and shove it up your ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear; there is no appeal to ignorance of any written law; unless it is un-Constitutional.  Those of your point of view are simply too incompetent to understand the difference.
Click to expand...


The AMENDMENT is not a bit of legislation, you dolt.  It is the framework with which the law must comply.

Do try to get caught up.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

And daniel-pos, don't call me "dear."  I am not dear to you and vice versa.

You are just a plodding lolberal hack bitch with an appallingly ignorant misapprehension of what this Republic's Constitution actually says and means..  Nothing more.


----------



## danielpalos

IlarMeilyr said:


> And daniel-pos, don't call me "dear."  I am not dear to you and vice versa.
> 
> You are just a plodding lolberal hack bitch with an appallingly ignorant misapprehension of what this Republic's Constitution actually says and means..  Nothing more.


wrong about what, dear?  are you always so special and so slow, even molasses is faster than you.

you have nothing but fallacy that form of rejection and repeal, instead of valid arguments and solutions.


----------



## ChrisL

danielpalos said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> And daniel-pos, don't call me "dear."  I am not dear to you and vice versa.
> 
> You are just a plodding lolberal hack bitch with an appallingly ignorant misapprehension of what this Republic's Constitution actually says and means..  Nothing more.
> 
> 
> 
> wrong about what, dear?  are you always so special and so slow, even molasses is faster than you.
> 
> you have nothing but fallacy that form of rejection and repeal, instead of valid arguments and solutions.
Click to expand...


Everyone is still waiting for you to come up with any kind of argument.  None of your posts make sense, sadly.


----------



## ChrisL

danielpalos said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Militias are cool. Of course they in no way restrict the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are outvoted by the Constitution, the SCOTUS, all fifty states, 300,000,000+ firearms in the hands of 100,000,000+ citizens, and history.
> 
> Go and grovel happily in your fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which fantasy is that?
> 
> acquire and possess, simple possession, is secured in State Constitutions with that terminology.
> 
> Keep and bear is not the same as simple possession; for Anyone.  Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Individual felons of the People are being denied and disparaged, simple possession of Arms, every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is your MISunderstanding of what the Second Amendment says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, simply claiming that is an appeal to ignorance and that form of _incompetence_ without any sound line of reasoning to back it up.
> 
> Keep and bear is not the same as simple possession; for Anyone.  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...


Why do you call other men "dear?"  Are you gay?


----------



## danielpalos

ChrisL said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> And daniel-pos, don't call me "dear."  I am not dear to you and vice versa.
> 
> You are just a plodding lolberal hack bitch with an appallingly ignorant misapprehension of what this Republic's Constitution actually says and means..  Nothing more.
> 
> 
> 
> wrong about what, dear?  are you always so special and so slow, even molasses is faster than you.
> 
> you have nothing but fallacy that form of rejection and repeal, instead of valid arguments and solutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone is still waiting for you to come up with any kind of argument.  None of your posts make sense, sadly.
Click to expand...

i already have dear; only the clueless and the Causeless claim what you do.


----------



## danielpalos

ChrisL said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they do
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are outvoted by the Constitution, the SCOTUS, all fifty states, 300,000,000+ firearms in the hands of 100,000,000+ citizens, and history.
> 
> Go and grovel happily in your fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which fantasy is that?
> 
> acquire and possess, simple possession, is secured in State Constitutions with that terminology.
> 
> Keep and bear is not the same as simple possession; for Anyone.  Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Individual felons of the People are being denied and disparaged, simple possession of Arms, every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is your MISunderstanding of what the Second Amendment says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, simply claiming that is an appeal to ignorance and that form of _incompetence_ without any sound line of reasoning to back it up.
> 
> Keep and bear is not the same as simple possession; for Anyone.  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...
> 
> 
> Why do you call other men "dear?"  Are you gay?
Click to expand...

Your problem is your cute pics in your gallery are simply not hot enough  nor pornographic enough for me to want to play your silly games, chic.  Trics are for kids, dear.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

ChrisL said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> And daniel-pos, don't call me "dear."  I am not dear to you and vice versa.
> 
> You are just a plodding lolberal hack bitch with an appallingly ignorant misapprehension of what this Republic's Constitution actually says and means..  Nothing more.
> 
> 
> 
> wrong about what, dear?  are you always so special and so slow, even molasses is faster than you.
> 
> you have nothing but fallacy that form of rejection and repeal, instead of valid arguments and solutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone is still waiting for you to come up with any kind of argument.  None of your posts make sense, sadly.
Click to expand...


When I was in school, there was a special class for the retarded students like danielpalos.  They didn't mix them with the educated kids.


----------



## ChrisL

danielpalos said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> And daniel-pos, don't call me "dear."  I am not dear to you and vice versa.
> 
> You are just a plodding lolberal hack bitch with an appallingly ignorant misapprehension of what this Republic's Constitution actually says and means..  Nothing more.
> 
> 
> 
> wrong about what, dear?  are you always so special and so slow, even molasses is faster than you.
> 
> you have nothing but fallacy that form of rejection and repeal, instead of valid arguments and solutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone is still waiting for you to come up with any kind of argument.  None of your posts make sense, sadly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i already have dear; only the clueless and the Causeless claim what you do.
Click to expand...


Nope, you haven't.  All you do is string together some words and quote the second amendment.  You haven't made any points at all.  The language in the 2nd is clear, especially when you read the federalist papers that supplement the BOR.  They are quite clear why they felt the 2nd amendment was important and it was to allow citizens to protect themselves, against whatever, the government, intruders, those who want to do them harm.


----------



## danielpalos

Dear, rights in self-defense are also secured in State Constitutions with the appropriate, "strings of words".

Our Second Article of Amendment merely socializes the right of the militia of the People to ensure the security and domestic Tranquility of the Body politic, not themselves.


----------



## ChrisL

danielpalos said:


> Dear, rights in self-defense are also secured in State Constitutions with the appropriate, "strings of words".
> 
> Our Second Article of Amendment merely socializes the right of the militia of the People to ensure the security and domestic Tranquility of the Body politic, not themselves.



This doesn't even make any sense, as usual.


----------



## danielpalos

only the clueless and the Causeless, say that, dear.  it is like, soo special.


----------



## ChrisL

danielpalos said:


> only the clueless and the Causeless, say that, dear.  it is like, soo special.



More nonsense.


----------



## danielpalos

ChrisL said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> only the clueless and the Causeless, say that, dear.  it is like, soo special.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More nonsense.
Click to expand...

yes, dear; that is all you bring to the table.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

danielpalos said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> And daniel-pos, don't call me "dear."  I am not dear to you and vice versa.
> 
> You are just a plodding lolberal hack bitch with an appallingly ignorant misapprehension of what this Republic's Constitution actually says and means..  Nothing more.
> 
> 
> 
> wrong about what, dear?  are you always so special and so slow, even molasses is faster than you.
> 
> you have nothing but fallacy that form of rejection and repeal, instead of valid arguments and solutions.
Click to expand...


As others have patiently tried to tell you, daniel-pos, you are the one who is driven entirely by fallacy and your astounding ignorance.

You have yet to demonstrate the first faint clue as to the intent buttressing the crafting of the Second Amendment.

IF you ever get a clue, you will see that the Federalist Papers are a damn fine source.  Until then, you remain forever stuck on stupid.


----------



## danielpalos

IlarMeilyr said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> And daniel-pos, don't call me "dear."  I am not dear to you and vice versa.
> 
> You are just a plodding lolberal hack bitch with an appallingly ignorant misapprehension of what this Republic's Constitution actually says and means..  Nothing more.
> 
> 
> 
> wrong about what, dear?  are you always so special and so slow, even molasses is faster than you.
> 
> you have nothing but fallacy that form of rejection and repeal, instead of valid arguments and solutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As others have patiently tried to tell you, daniel-pos, you are the one who is driven entirely by fallacy and your astounding ignorance.
> 
> You have yet to demonstrate the first faint clue as to the intent buttressing the crafting of the Second Amendment.
> 
> IF you ever get a clue, you will see that the Federalist Papers are a damn fine source.  Until then, you remain forever stuck on stupid.
Click to expand...

still nothing but hearsay soothsay?


----------



## 2aguy

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.
> 
> What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?




No.  The right to bear arms is an individual right not dependant on service to the state.


----------



## 2aguy

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can do that without messing with the 2nd
> 
> 
> 
> We couldn't make those changes without "messing" with it. The way it's currently worded implies that every US citizen has an inalienable right to gun ownership. It is also vague as to the exact identity of the militia. That second bit is clear just from the vast numbers of differing opinions on the subject. I'd like to reword it to restrict the unfit (such as the violently mentally ill) from ownership explicitly, define the "well regulated militia" as the state defense force of each state, and require active membership in a local militia as a prerequisite for having one.
> 
> Again, I'm not anti-gun. I'm absolutely fine with you having one. I'm even fine with you walking around with it concealed in public. I just want you to pass a psychological screening and have a basic awareness and respect for the killing tool in your hand instilled into you before you're allowed to do so.
Click to expand...



Sorry any of those things can be used to deny the Right and are unacceptable.  In Britian they now want you to get cleared by a medical doctor before you can own a gun....yeah...like that won't limit gun ownership even more......


----------



## 2aguy

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to modify it, remove "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,"
> 
> 
> 
> The important part?
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not willing to throw all those old people and handicapped people and women under the bus.
> 
> Why are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jared Loughner didn't need a gun. James Holmes didn't need a gun. Adam Lanza didn't need a gun. I hope the reasons I'm totally fine with depriving people like them of having one before they go on a shooting spree would be obvious. Similarly, I don't really consider grampa with the wheelchair and the oxygen tank to be fit for service either.
> 
> 
> 
> USNavyVet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Part of the reason for the 2nde Amendment is to fight off a tyrannical government. If you're part of the government you're less likely to want to fight them off. So no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know the fact that they mention ONE reason to have the Right to Bear Arms, does not mean that it is the ONLY reason.
> I am sure that the vast majority of the Founders supported allowing citizens guns for hunting, and protection from dangerous animals, even though it was not specifically mentioned in the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fair points.
Click to expand...



Nope....all 3 could have been in your so called state service since none of them had mental health disqualifiers that kept them from buying or owning guns.


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. Any requirement to join a government organization or register the arms owned is a non-starter so far as I'm concerned.
> 
> One of tge main points for owning firearms is to protect yourself from the Government; so why would I want to join a Government agency to get the Right to own arms?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, anyone who tells me he needs guns to protect himself from government is crazy.
> 
> You've got a gun.
> 
> They've got tanks, and bombers, and drones, and missiles.
> 
> 32,000 gun deaths and 78,000 gun injuries every year doesn't justify humoring your fantasies.
Click to expand...



only 8,454 gun murders in 2013 and most of those were committed by career criminal sociopaths in democrat controlled inner cities.

And bill clinton had his Department of Justice research gun self defense.  He hired 2 anti gun researchers who created a study specifically to refute Dr. Kleck's study....and what did these 2 anti gun researchers discover...according to their study, Americans use guns to stop violent crime 1.5 million times a year.....

and as to defeating the government.....poorly armed barbarians fought us to the point where we are now pulling out of the middle east, and all they had were small arms and improvised bombs...vs, the might of the entire U.S. military and intelligence communities......so yes...our guns will help us if the government turns on us.


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Better to die on my feet than live on my knees.
> 
> How many of those deaths involve legal guns in the hands of legal gun owners (not including self defense) instead of criminal actions...... very few.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, most of them. 2/3rds of htem are suicides.  about 1000 of them are accidents, and the rest are homicides,  often committed by people they know.
Click to expand...



in 2013 the number of accidental gun deaths...505....in a country with over 320 million guns in private hands and over 12.8 million people carrying guns for self defense....

So no, guns are not a problem...American gun owners are incredibly responsible and as more people own and buy guns, the gun murder rate, and the accidental gun death rate have gone down, not up...

And by the way...the suicide by gun rate has gone down 5% while the suicide with everything else has gone up 19%


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Grandpa in the wheelchair and on oxygen is a fine target for a cowardly robber.
> 
> Grandpa in the wheelchair and on oxygen with a gun in the drawer next to him has a chance to defend himself.
> 
> I want grandpa to win, and the robber to lose.
> 
> Thank you for admitting that a Primary Reason does not preclude other reasons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So little billy takes out the gun and shoots his little sister with Grandpa's gun, and that's okay with you?
Click to expand...



How often does that happen...in a country of 320 million people.....

in 2013, there were 69 children killed in gun accidents.....in a country of over 320 million people.....keep kids out of cars...more die in car accidents than with guns...


----------



## 2aguy

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> within?
> 
> where did you get the idea the word 'within' is in the Amendment.
> 
> They gave the right to the PEOPLE, not the militia.
> 
> no other way to read it.
> 
> 
> 
> I feel like you might not understand what a militia is. The militia *are* the people. It's the able bodied civilian population that can be levied by the local government as a military force should the need arise. The reason I chose the state defense forces for the proposal specifically is that they serve only the local government. Their chain of command only goes up to the adjutant general and governor. They can't be federalized and have no federal authority in their chain of command. It's purely defensive in nature and conforms best to the meaning of the term at the time and the intent of the amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm well aware of what a 'militia' is.
> 
> and, per the Amendment, membership in a militia is NOT required for the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You would see that I agree with you if you read the OP. The fact that it isn't is half of what the compromise we're discussing would be about. You want everyone to get to have one. The other side wants few to no one outside the active military and police to have one. I'm proposing a deal where you both get part of what you want that actually leans closer to you. Require that everyone who wants one register with their local defense force, where they can be given the training they need not to be a danger to themselves and me by professionals. Set the bar for registration low yet not so low as to be nonexistent. It's still technically an armed military force, and you don't want deathbed grampa or Crazy Eddie who lives under the bridge anywhere near one - especially when the Ruskies invade and you're depending on them to ensure your freedom and survival.
Click to expand...



Nope...not necessary....there is no need to license gun owners, register guns or require training...all three just lead to the government putting the Right out of the reach of normal people.


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> USNavyVet said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that we beat the best army at the time, right? Or does history elude you? Nevermind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Did the British army have tanks and drones and bombers?
> 
> oh, by the way. The only reason the Founding Slave Rapists won is because the French helped htem. But never mind.
> 
> 
> 
> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> 
> So 67% of them have nothing to do with the gun (they'd have found a different tool if the gun wasn't available)
> 
> 1000 of them are criminal negligence issues.
> 
> The rest are homicides. Almost all of which are committed by people who are already criminals and with illegal guns.
> 
> Doesn't seem to me that much would change even if we made guns totally illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not true- you eliminate a method of suicide, suicides decline.
> 
> And most homicides happen between people who know each other.
> Which is why have thousands of homicides and other industrial democracies only have hundreds.
Click to expand...



gun suicide rates have dropped 5% as more people own guns according to the stats from the CDC.....other methods have gone up 19%


----------



## 2aguy

Correll said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Granny said:
> 
> 
> 
> You miss the point - no weapon - and just about anything can be a weapon - at any distance just jumps up and acts of its own volition. Somebody has to be wielding the weapon. A pissed off housewife could throw a damned frying pan from 20 feet and kill somebody if the thing hit just right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have 32,000 gun deaths a year.
> 
> I think we have considerably less deaths by Frying Pan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you believe that poverty is a major factor is causing crime?
Click to expand...



actually, the major factor....teenage,female single  parents.....that is the major cause of poverty and crime.


----------



## ChrisL

What other rights do people want us to "compromise" on?    No, we should not compromise our rights because some idiots and psychopaths abuse their rights.


----------



## danielpalos

2aguy said:


> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.
> 
> What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  The right to bear arms is an individual right not dependant on service to the state.
Click to expand...

That only applies to simple possession and acquisition; it is distinguished in paragraph (2) of DC v Heller.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

danielpalos said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.
> 
> What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  The right to bear arms is an individual right not dependant on service to the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That only applies to simple possession and acquisition; it is distinguished in paragraph (2) of DC v Heller.
Click to expand...


Complete nonsense.  Of what use is a printing press if you are forbidden to print?

The SCOTUS reaffirmed in a 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to federal enclaves and protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond federal enclaves to the states which was addressed later by McDonald v. Chicago (2010). It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.  It also  struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, determined that handguns are "arms" for the purposes of the Second Amendment, found that the Regulations Act was an unconstitutional ban, and struck down the portion of the Regulations Act that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock."


----------



## M14 Shooter

Still waiting to see what we get in return for giving up part of our right.


----------



## danielpalos

Billy_Kinetta said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.
> 
> What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  The right to bear arms is an individual right not dependant on service to the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That only applies to simple possession and acquisition; it is distinguished in paragraph (2) of DC v Heller.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Complete nonsense.  Of what use is a printing press if you are forbidden to print?
> 
> The SCOTUS reaffirmed in a 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to federal enclaves and protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond federal enclaves to the states which was addressed later by McDonald v. Chicago (2010). It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.  It also  struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, determined that handguns are "arms" for the purposes of the Second Amendment, found that the Regulations Act was an unconstitutional ban, and struck down the portion of the Regulations Act that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock."
Click to expand...

Nothing but non sequiters?  Paragraph (2) of DC v Heller claims otherwise.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Billy_Kinetta said:


> Complete nonsense.  Of what use is a printing press if you are forbidden to print?


Heller specifically mentions the protected right to _use _a firearm.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

M14 Shooter said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> Complete nonsense.  Of what use is a printing press if you are forbidden to print?
> 
> 
> 
> Heller specifically mentions the protected right to _use _a firearm.
Click to expand...


Of course it does.  Intended as sarcasm towards danielpalos' idiot ramblings.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Billy_Kinetta said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> Complete nonsense.  Of what use is a printing press if you are forbidden to print?
> 
> 
> 
> Heller specifically mentions the protected right to _use _a firearm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it does.  Intended as sarcasm towards danielpalos' idiot ramblings.
Click to expand...

Roger.  Just wanted to be clear.


----------



## kaz

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.
> 
> What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?



Would you accept a compromise where to have free speech you need to register and serve the government if called on?


----------



## Pedro de San Patricio

kaz said:


> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.
> 
> What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you accept a compromise where to have free speech you need to register and serve the government if called on?
Click to expand...

That sort of thing seems somewhat popular among my peers, actually. Like a Starship Troopers system where civil service confers citizenship and enfranchisement. I'm on the fence about it. On one hand, government employment is just another job. On the other hand, it would ensure that the voter base actually gives a damn about what they're doing every election. Rome's outsourcing of its military and its almost immediate fall does not strike me as coincidence.


----------



## ChrisL

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.
> 
> What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you accept a compromise where to have free speech you need to register and serve the government if called on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That sort of thing seems somewhat popular among my peers, actually. Like a Starship Troopers system where civil service confers citizenship and enfranchisement. I'm on the fence about it. On one hand, government employment is just another job. On the other hand, it would ensure that the voter base actually gives a damn about what they're doing every election. Rome's outsourcing of its military and its almost immediate fall does not strike me as coincidence.
Click to expand...


Why do you want to give the government control over our rights???  That is crazy talk.


----------



## Pedro de San Patricio

ChrisL said:


> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.
> 
> What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you accept a compromise where to have free speech you need to register and serve the government if called on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That sort of thing seems somewhat popular among my peers, actually. Like a Starship Troopers system where civil service confers citizenship and enfranchisement. I'm on the fence about it. On one hand, government employment is just another job. On the other hand, it would ensure that the voter base actually gives a damn about what they're doing every election. Rome's outsourcing of its military and its almost immediate fall does not strike me as coincidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you want to give the government control over our rights???  That is crazy talk.
Click to expand...

I didn't say I want the government to control our rights. I said it's there's a level of support among my colleagues for restricting certain rights (most importantly franchise) to those who have completed a short term of service to the nation. That can be the military, but it can also be teaching, research, or any occupation that involves sacrifice in the name of civic duty. I didn't say I personally accept that but I see it as one potential solution to the problems it addresses.


----------



## ChrisL

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.
> 
> What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you accept a compromise where to have free speech you need to register and serve the government if called on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That sort of thing seems somewhat popular among my peers, actually. Like a Starship Troopers system where civil service confers citizenship and enfranchisement. I'm on the fence about it. On one hand, government employment is just another job. On the other hand, it would ensure that the voter base actually gives a damn about what they're doing every election. Rome's outsourcing of its military and its almost immediate fall does not strike me as coincidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you want to give the government control over our rights???  That is crazy talk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't say I want the government to control our rights. I said it's there's a level of support among my colleagues for restricting certain rights (most importantly franchise) to those who have completed a short term of service to the nation. That can be the military, but it can also be teaching, research, or any occupation that involves sacrifice in the name of civic duty. I didn't say I personally accept that but I see it as one potential solution to the problems it addresses.
Click to expand...


That is called "infringing" on our rights as citizens!  Some people are also not capable of serving the military in those capacities.  That doesn't mean that those people shouldn't have rights.


----------



## Pedro de San Patricio

The military would be one of many paths under that system. Teachers would be another good example of an occupation based around national service. Obviously our current system is totally incompatible with that one, but I'm not sure it will outlast the last scraps of the general population's civic mindedness. "Ask not what you can do for your country but what your country can do for you" is inherently untenable, especially when almost everyone's doing it.


----------



## ChrisL

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> The military would be one of many paths under that system. Teachers would be another good example of an occupation based around national service. Obviously our current system is totally incompatible with that one, but I'm not sure it will outlast the last scraps of the general population's civic mindedness. "Ask not what you can do for your country but what your country can do for you" is inherently untenable, especially when almost everyone's doing it.



What if you aren't a teacher?  What if you work at a minimum wage paying job or something?  You can't set "conditions" to grant rights!


----------



## Pedro de San Patricio

ChrisL said:


> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> The military would be one of many paths under that system. Teachers would be another good example of an occupation based around national service. Obviously our current system is totally incompatible with that one, but I'm not sure it will outlast the last scraps of the general population's civic mindedness. "Ask not what you can do for your country but what your country can do for you" is inherently untenable, especially when almost everyone's doing it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What if you aren't a teacher?  What if you work at a minimum wage paying job or something?  You can't set "conditions" to grant rights!
Click to expand...

Then you could join AmeriCorps or work for FEMA or something. Keep in mind that I'm not proposing this personally and that I understand the reasoning behind it. I'm saying it's a popular viewpoint in my profession. There is a difference.


----------



## ChrisL

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> The military would be one of many paths under that system. Teachers would be another good example of an occupation based around national service. Obviously our current system is totally incompatible with that one, but I'm not sure it will outlast the last scraps of the general population's civic mindedness. "Ask not what you can do for your country but what your country can do for you" is inherently untenable, especially when almost everyone's doing it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What if you aren't a teacher?  What if you work at a minimum wage paying job or something?  You can't set "conditions" to grant rights!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you could join AmeriCorps or work for FEMA or something. Keep in mind that I'm not proposing this personally and that I understand the reasoning behind it. I'm saying it's a popular viewpoint in my profession. There is a difference.
Click to expand...


Nope, you can't do that.  THINK about what it is you are proposing and what it says in the Bill of Rights.  You need to understand our rights and why it is important that all citizens are treated equally when it comes to them.  You don't get to "grant" rights.  They are "natural."


----------



## Pedro de San Patricio

ChrisL said:


> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you could join AmeriCorps or work for FEMA or something. Keep in mind that I'm not proposing this personally and that I understand the reasoning behind it. I'm saying it's a popular viewpoint in my profession. There is a difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, you can't do that.  THINK about what it is you are proposing and what it says in the Bill of Rights.  You need to understand our rights and why it is important that all citizens are treated equally when it comes to them.  You don't get to "grant" rights.  They are "natural."
Click to expand...


----------



## ChrisL

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you could join AmeriCorps or work for FEMA or something. Keep in mind that I'm not proposing this personally and that I understand the reasoning behind it. I'm saying it's a popular viewpoint in my profession. There is a difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, you can't do that.  THINK about what it is you are proposing and what it says in the Bill of Rights.  You need to understand our rights and why it is important that all citizens are treated equally when it comes to them.  You don't get to "grant" rights.  They are "natural."
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


You start a thread about it, but you're "not" proposing it?  Yeah sure, okay.  Lol.


----------



## Pedro de San Patricio

I thought you were still referring to the tangent. We have a natural right to shoot guns?


----------



## danielpalos

M14 Shooter said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> Complete nonsense.  Of what use is a printing press if you are forbidden to print?
> 
> 
> 
> Heller specifically mentions the protected right to _use _a firearm.
Click to expand...

That right is already secured in State Conditions.  Only well regulated militas of the People are exempt from paragraph (2) of DC v Heller.


----------



## ChrisL

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> I thought you were still referring to the tangent. We have a natural right to shoot guns?



We have a natural right to defend ourselves.  Guns are the most effective way to do that.  The founders believed that the 2nd amendment was a "God given" right, not to be infringed by any governments.  You have to think in the way THEY thought back in those times and read the federalist papers, which give a lot of insight into just what they were thinking.


----------



## danielpalos

Yes, our Founding Fathers clearly stated the Intent and Purpose in the first clause.  It really is that simple except to the disingenuous right.


----------



## kaz

ChrisL said:


> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.
> 
> What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you accept a compromise where to have free speech you need to register and serve the government if called on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That sort of thing seems somewhat popular among my peers, actually. Like a Starship Troopers system where civil service confers citizenship and enfranchisement. I'm on the fence about it. On one hand, government employment is just another job. On the other hand, it would ensure that the voter base actually gives a damn about what they're doing every election. Rome's outsourcing of its military and its almost immediate fall does not strike me as coincidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you want to give the government control over our rights???  That is crazy talk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't say I want the government to control our rights. I said it's there's a level of support among my colleagues for restricting certain rights (most importantly franchise) to those who have completed a short term of service to the nation. That can be the military, but it can also be teaching, research, or any occupation that involves sacrifice in the name of civic duty. I didn't say I personally accept that but I see it as one potential solution to the problems it addresses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is called "infringing" on our rights as citizens!  Some people are also not capable of serving the military in those capacities.  That doesn't mean that those people shouldn't have rights.
Click to expand...


It's funny how you get all huffy about government intrusion over our bodies, but when it comes to our wallets, government has an open door to take all they want of the money we earned


----------



## ChrisL

kaz said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you accept a compromise where to have free speech you need to register and serve the government if called on?
> 
> 
> 
> That sort of thing seems somewhat popular among my peers, actually. Like a Starship Troopers system where civil service confers citizenship and enfranchisement. I'm on the fence about it. On one hand, government employment is just another job. On the other hand, it would ensure that the voter base actually gives a damn about what they're doing every election. Rome's outsourcing of its military and its almost immediate fall does not strike me as coincidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you want to give the government control over our rights???  That is crazy talk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't say I want the government to control our rights. I said it's there's a level of support among my colleagues for restricting certain rights (most importantly franchise) to those who have completed a short term of service to the nation. That can be the military, but it can also be teaching, research, or any occupation that involves sacrifice in the name of civic duty. I didn't say I personally accept that but I see it as one potential solution to the problems it addresses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is called "infringing" on our rights as citizens!  Some people are also not capable of serving the military in those capacities.  That doesn't mean that those people shouldn't have rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's funny how you get all huffy about government intrusion over our bodies, but when it comes to our wallets, government has an open door to take all they want of the money we earned
Click to expand...


Quote where I've ever said such a thing please.  TYIA.


----------



## saveliberty

A right is always a right.  Sometimes a right needs to be protected, which often falls upon the second amendment.


----------



## Cecilie1200

M14 Shooter said:


> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Basically what I'm proposing is that enlistment in your local SDF be made part of the process for buying or owning a firearm.
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> I therefore do not accept your proposed compromise because I receive nothing in return for giving up part of my rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which is why an argument over the meaning broke out. The proposal entailed an amendment to clarify that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The meaning of the amendment has been clear for sometime now -- there's no need for your suggestion in order to clarity it.
> 
> 
> 
> You're gaining permanent victory over those who would remove the right altogether and your community is gaining a guarantee that you'll be capable of using your guns safely for lawful purposes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one honestly believes that agreeing to your proposal will prevent further erosion of the right to arms - and so, I receive nothing in return for giving up part of my right.
> 
> Your compromise fails because it offers us nothing in return for something.
Click to expand...


And it offers no reason why we should compromise and offer anything at all.


----------



## Cecilie1200

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> which ignorance is that, dears: _A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, every one of us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why do you believe you are a _well regulated militia_ of the People instead of a _non-well regulated militia_ of the People; have you been mustering to become necessary to the security of a free State?
Click to expand...


Why do you believe that the right to bear arms requires membership in a militia?  Is it because you don't understand English, or you just don't want to understand it in this case?

And no, Mensa Boy, before you even go there:  mentioning the word "militia" in a separate clause is not the same as making the right dependent on militia membership.  If you weren't illiterate, this wouldn't need explaining.


----------



## saveliberty

Could be the Founders assumed all citizens were militia.  I mean who wouldn't want to defend their homes and country against all enemies foreign and domestic?


----------



## Cecilie1200

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, every one of us.
> 
> 
> 
> why do you believe you are a _well regulated militia_ of the People instead of a _non-well regulated militia_ of the People; have you been mustering to become necessary to the security of a free State?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't need to be a well regulated militia to exercise my right. Or a militia at all.
> 
> Militias are groovy, that's why my right to bear arms must not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which right is that?  _acquiring_ and _possessing_ Arms is not the same nor equivalent to keeping and bearing Arms for a State or the Union, but for a fraction of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The individual right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> simple possession is already secured in State Constitutions, dears.
> 
> _All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy._
Click to expand...


And given how much leftists have always respected state law and state sovereignty, we'll get RIGHT on trusting you disingenuous sacks of crap on this one.  Yeah, and hold your breath waiting for us to do so.


----------



## danielpalos

Cecilie1200 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> which ignorance is that, dears: _A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, every one of us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why do you believe you are a _well regulated militia_ of the People instead of a _non-well regulated militia_ of the People; have you been mustering to become necessary to the security of a free State?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you believe that the right to bear arms requires membership in a militia?  Is it because you don't understand English, or you just don't want to understand it in this case?
> 
> And no, Mensa Boy, before you even go there:  mentioning the word "militia" in a separate clause is not the same as making the right dependent on militia membership.  If you weren't illiterate, this wouldn't need explaining.
Click to expand...

dear, you are confused as to the meaning of the term militia, as it relates to the militia of the United States.


----------



## Cecilie1200

RetiredGySgt said:


> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no language denoting Individual rights in our Second Article of Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _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...
> 
> This is what I was talking about.
> 
> The liberal reading: _A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state_
> The conservative reading: _the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed_
> The actual text: _A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed._
> 
> The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is NOT what the sentence says. An \English Professor already broke the sentence down. It says the right of the people shall not be infringed and lists as one of many POSSIBLE reasons a Militia.
Click to expand...


True.  Most likely because it's about the only reason that isn't already covered, explicitly or implicitly, in other places.

Point is, it really doesn't matter if the "because" referred to in the first clause of the Amendment is the necessity of militias or because guns are shiny and make loud noises.  No matter what that clause says, the second clause remains clear:  the right of the people shall not be infringed.  The government bureaucracy and departments are not "the people":  the individual citizens are, always have been and always will be.


----------



## Cecilie1200

danielpalos said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> which ignorance is that, dears: _A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, every one of us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why do you believe you are a _well regulated militia_ of the People instead of a _non-well regulated militia_ of the People; have you been mustering to become necessary to the security of a free State?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you believe that the right to bear arms requires membership in a militia?  Is it because you don't understand English, or you just don't want to understand it in this case?
> 
> And no, Mensa Boy, before you even go there:  mentioning the word "militia" in a separate clause is not the same as making the right dependent on militia membership.  If you weren't illiterate, this wouldn't need explaining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, you are confused as to the meaning of the term militia, as it relates to the militia of the United States.
Click to expand...


No, "dear", you're confused on the plain English grammar that makes the right to bear arms independent of militia membership.

I don't blame you for the shoddy education you received through leftist-controlled public schools, but I do blame you for being content to be an illiterate ignoramus.


----------



## danielpalos

Cecilie1200 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> why do you believe you are a _well regulated militia_ of the People instead of a _non-well regulated militia_ of the People; have you been mustering to become necessary to the security of a free State?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need to be a well regulated militia to exercise my right. Or a militia at all.
> 
> Militias are groovy, that's why my right to bear arms must not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which right is that?  _acquiring_ and _possessing_ Arms is not the same nor equivalent to keeping and bearing Arms for a State or the Union, but for a fraction of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The individual right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> simple possession is already secured in State Constitutions, dears.
> 
> _All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And given how much leftists have always respected state law and state sovereignty, we'll get RIGHT on trusting you disingenuous sacks of crap on this one.  Yeah, and hold your breath waiting for us to do so.
Click to expand...

It is the right that has no problem with trampling States Rights through a nationalized and socialized, war on durgs.


----------



## danielpalos

Cecilie1200 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no language denoting Individual rights in our Second Article of Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _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...
> 
> This is what I was talking about.
> 
> The liberal reading: _A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state_
> The conservative reading: _the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed_
> The actual text: _A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed._
> 
> The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is NOT what the sentence says. An \English Professor already broke the sentence down. It says the right of the people shall not be infringed and lists as one of many POSSIBLE reasons a Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True.  Most likely because it's about the only reason that isn't already covered, explicitly or implicitly, in other places.
> 
> Point is, it really doesn't matter if the "because" referred to in the first clause of the Amendment is the necessity of militias or because guns are shiny and make loud noises.  No matter what that clause says, the second clause remains clear:  the right of the people shall not be infringed.  The government bureaucracy and departments are not "the people":  the individual citizens are, always have been and always will be.
Click to expand...

dears, only well regulated mitias of the People may not be infringed, due to their necessity to the security of a free State.


----------



## danielpalos

Cecilie1200 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> which ignorance is that, dears: _A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, every one of us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why do you believe you are a _well regulated militia_ of the People instead of a _non-well regulated militia_ of the People; have you been mustering to become necessary to the security of a free State?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you believe that the right to bear arms requires membership in a militia?  Is it because you don't understand English, or you just don't want to understand it in this case?
> 
> And no, Mensa Boy, before you even go there:  mentioning the word "militia" in a separate clause is not the same as making the right dependent on militia membership.  If you weren't illiterate, this wouldn't need explaining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, you are confused as to the meaning of the term militia, as it relates to the militia of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, "dear", you're confused on the plain English grammar that makes the right to bear arms independent of militia membership.
> 
> I don't blame you for the shoddy education you received through leftist-controlled public schools, but I do blame you for being content to be an illiterate ignoramus.
Click to expand...

No, dear.  The right to acquire and possess Arms is secured in State Constitutions.


----------



## Pete7469

Cecilie1200 said:


> And it offers no reason why we should compromise and offer anything at all.



NEVER "compromise" with bed wetters.

First of all, they're ALWAYS WRONG, so any "compromise" is never better than half wrong.

Secondly they never settle with the compromise and always come back for what was left on the table. You'll have absolute hell trying to get back anything you let the bed wetters get away with. They have been incrementally chipping away our rights for decades and it will be nearly impossible to get them back.

I hold out hope that Ted Cruz is elected though, because he is the only one who will roll back regressive libtard policy as much as possible.


----------



## Pete7469

Cecilie1200 said:


> No, "dear", you're confused on the plain English grammar that makes the right to bear arms independent of militia membership.
> 
> I don't blame you for the shoddy education you received through leftist-controlled public schools, but I do blame you for being content to be an illiterate ignoramus.



Have no pity for these moonbats. They are stupid of course but they're deliberately stupid.


----------



## Cecilie1200

danielpalos said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what it says at all, and SCOTUS recently corrected that erroneous and short-lived mid-20th Century Leftist notion.
> 
> Give it up Democrats.  You have been rendered impotent on this issue.
> 
> 
> 
> yes, it is what it says; and, there is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law as a privilege or immunity in our _fine_ and _glorious_, Republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fine.  Produce writings from the Founding Fathers indicating it is so.  We'll wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment was produced by our Founding Fathers;  there is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law as a privilege or immunity in our fine and glorious, Republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That does not produce the requested documentation, so off you go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude; the Intent and Purpose is in the first clause in our Second Article of Amendment.  There is no appeal to ignorance of that Intent and Purpose as a privilege and immunity for Persons in our fine and glorious Republic.
Click to expand...


Dude, that's your opinion, and utterly unsubstantiated by 1) the writings of the Founding Fathers, 2) the decisions of the courts since the Founding, 3) practice and application of the law since the Founding, and 4) common English grammar.

You're the only one "appealing to ignorance" here, and frankly, your ignorance is not the least bit appealing.


----------



## Pete7469

Cecilie1200 said:


> Dude, that's your opinion, and utterly unsubstantiated by 1) the writings of the Founding Fathers, 2) the decisions of the courts since the Founding, 3) practice and application of the law since the Founding, and 4) common English grammar.
> 
> You're the only one "appealing to ignorance" here, and frankly, your ignorance is not the least bit appealing.



Neither is the odor.


----------



## danielpalos

Cecilie1200 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes, it is what it says; and, there is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law as a privilege or immunity in our _fine_ and _glorious_, Republic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fine.  Produce writings from the Founding Fathers indicating it is so.  We'll wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment was produced by our Founding Fathers;  there is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law as a privilege or immunity in our fine and glorious, Republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That does not produce the requested documentation, so off you go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude; the Intent and Purpose is in the first clause in our Second Article of Amendment.  There is no appeal to ignorance of that Intent and Purpose as a privilege and immunity for Persons in our fine and glorious Republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, that's your opinion, and utterly unsubstantisated by 1) the writings of the Founding Fathers, 2) the decisions of the courts since the Founding, 3) practice and application of the law since the Founding, and 4) common English grammar.
> 
> You're the only one "appealing to ignorance" here, and frankly, your ignorance is not the least bit appealing.
Click to expand...

nope; not my opinion, but legal fact.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no language denoting Individual rights in our Second Article of Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _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...
> 
> This is what I was talking about.
> 
> The liberal reading: _A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state_
> The conservative reading: _the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed_
> The actual text: _A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed._
> 
> The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is NOT what the sentence says. An \English Professor already broke the sentence down. It says the right of the people shall not be infringed and lists as one of many POSSIBLE reasons a Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True.  Most likely because it's about the only reason that isn't already covered, explicitly or implicitly, in other places.
> 
> Point is, it really doesn't matter if the "because" referred to in the first clause of the Amendment is the necessity of militias or because guns are shiny and make loud noises.  No matter what that clause says, the second clause remains clear:  the right of the people shall not be infringed.  The government bureaucracy and departments are not "the people":  the individual citizens are, always have been and always will be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dears, only well regulated mitias of the People may not be infringed, due to their necessity to the security of a free State.
Click to expand...


*only well regulated mitias of the People may not be infringed
*
That's strange, no one asked me for my militia ID card when I got my guns.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> _A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, *the right of the people* to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed._​
> 
> 
> 
> This is what I was talking about.
> 
> The liberal reading: _A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state_
> The conservative reading: _the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed_
> The actual text: _A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed._
> 
> The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is NOT what the sentence says. An \English Professor already broke the sentence down. It says the right of the people shall not be infringed and lists as one of many POSSIBLE reasons a Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True.  Most likely because it's about the only reason that isn't already covered, explicitly or implicitly, in other places.
> 
> Point is, it really doesn't matter if the "because" referred to in the first clause of the Amendment is the necessity of militias or because guns are shiny and make loud noises.  No matter what that clause says, the second clause remains clear:  the right of the people shall not be infringed.  The government bureaucracy and departments are not "the people":  the individual citizens are, always have been and always will be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dears, only well regulated mitias of the People may not be infringed, due to their necessity to the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *only well regulated mitias of the People may not be infringed
> *
> That's strange, no one asked me for my militia ID card when I got my guns.
Click to expand...

Still nothing but diversion?  The natural right to acquire and possess private property, including the class called Arms, is secured in State Constitutions.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is what I was talking about.
> 
> The liberal reading: _A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state_
> The conservative reading: _the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed_
> The actual text: _A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed._
> 
> The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state
> 
> 
> 
> That is NOT what the sentence says. An \English Professor already broke the sentence down. It says the right of the people shall not be infringed and lists as one of many POSSIBLE reasons a Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True.  Most likely because it's about the only reason that isn't already covered, explicitly or implicitly, in other places.
> 
> Point is, it really doesn't matter if the "because" referred to in the first clause of the Amendment is the necessity of militias or because guns are shiny and make loud noises.  No matter what that clause says, the second clause remains clear:  the right of the people shall not be infringed.  The government bureaucracy and departments are not "the people":  the individual citizens are, always have been and always will be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dears, only well regulated mitias of the People may not be infringed, due to their necessity to the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *only well regulated mitias of the People may not be infringed
> *
> That's strange, no one asked me for my militia ID card when I got my guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still nothing but diversion?  The natural right to acquire and possess private property, including the class called Arms, is secured in State Constitutions.
Click to expand...


No one in my state asked for my militia ID either.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is NOT what the sentence says. An \English Professor already broke the sentence down. It says the right of the people shall not be infringed and lists as one of many POSSIBLE reasons a Militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True.  Most likely because it's about the only reason that isn't already covered, explicitly or implicitly, in other places.
> 
> Point is, it really doesn't matter if the "because" referred to in the first clause of the Amendment is the necessity of militias or because guns are shiny and make loud noises.  No matter what that clause says, the second clause remains clear:  the right of the people shall not be infringed.  The government bureaucracy and departments are not "the people":  the individual citizens are, always have been and always will be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dears, only well regulated mitias of the People may not be infringed, due to their necessity to the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *only well regulated mitias of the People may not be infringed
> *
> That's strange, no one asked me for my militia ID card when I got my guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still nothing but diversion?  The natural right to acquire and possess private property, including the class called Arms, is secured in State Constitutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one in my state asked for my militia ID either.
Click to expand...

dears, you don't have to be in a militia to acquire and possess private property in the class called Arms.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> True.  Most likely because it's about the only reason that isn't already covered, explicitly or implicitly, in other places.
> 
> Point is, it really doesn't matter if the "because" referred to in the first clause of the Amendment is the necessity of militias or because guns are shiny and make loud noises.  No matter what that clause says, the second clause remains clear:  the right of the people shall not be infringed.  The government bureaucracy and departments are not "the people":  the individual citizens are, always have been and always will be.
> 
> 
> 
> dears, only well regulated mitias of the People may not be infringed, due to their necessity to the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *only well regulated mitias of the People may not be infringed
> *
> That's strange, no one asked me for my militia ID card when I got my guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still nothing but diversion?  The natural right to acquire and possess private property, including the class called Arms, is secured in State Constitutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one in my state asked for my militia ID either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dears, you don't have to be in a militia to acquire and possess private property in the class called Arms.
Click to expand...

*
you don't have to be in a militia to acquire and possess private property in the class called Arms
*
Who ever said you did? I mean besides you?


----------



## danielpalos

Not me.  I didn't ask you for I'd either.


----------



## ChrisL

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> dears, only well regulated mitias of the People may not be infringed, due to their necessity to the security of a free State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *only well regulated mitias of the People may not be infringed
> *
> That's strange, no one asked me for my militia ID card when I got my guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still nothing but diversion?  The natural right to acquire and possess private property, including the class called Arms, is secured in State Constitutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one in my state asked for my militia ID either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dears, you don't have to be in a militia to acquire and possess private property in the class called Arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> you don't have to be in a militia to acquire and possess private property in the class called Arms
> *
> Who ever said you did? I mean besides you?
Click to expand...


Honestly, I don't think even he knows what he's talking about most of the time.


----------



## M14 Shooter

ChrisL said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *only well regulated mitias of the People may not be infringed
> *
> That's strange, no one asked me for my militia ID card when I got my guns.
> 
> 
> 
> Still nothing but diversion?  The natural right to acquire and possess private property, including the class called Arms, is secured in State Constitutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one in my state asked for my militia ID either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dears, you don't have to be in a militia to acquire and possess private property in the class called Arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> you don't have to be in a militia to acquire and possess private property in the class called Arms*
> Who ever said you did? I mean besides you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Honestly, I don't think even he knows what he's talking about most of the time.
Click to expand...

And what he does say, he does not do so honestly.


----------



## ChrisL

M14 Shooter said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still nothing but diversion?  The natural right to acquire and possess private property, including the class called Arms, is secured in State Constitutions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one in my state asked for my militia ID either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dears, you don't have to be in a militia to acquire and possess private property in the class called Arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> you don't have to be in a militia to acquire and possess private property in the class called Arms*
> Who ever said you did? I mean besides you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Honestly, I don't think even he knows what he's talking about most of the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And what he does say, he does not do so honestly.
Click to expand...


Seriously, I have absolutely NO idea what this dude is talking about MOST of the time.


----------



## danielpalos

Just the clueless and the Causeless having a conference?


----------



## M14 Shooter

ChrisL said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one in my state asked for my militia ID either.
> 
> 
> 
> dears, you don't have to be in a militia to acquire and possess private property in the class called Arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> you don't have to be in a militia to acquire and possess private property in the class called Arms*
> Who ever said you did? I mean besides you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Honestly, I don't think even he knows what he's talking about most of the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And what he does say, he does not do so honestly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seriously, I have absolutely NO idea what this dude is talking about MOST of the time.
Click to expand...

Neither does he.
In any case, there's no need to keep him off ignore.


----------



## Dan Daly

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> I thought you were still referring to the tangent. We have a natural right to shoot guns?



The right to keep and bear arms for the the defense of one's self, family and community is a basic human right that predates governments and constitutions.   

Now riddle me this, where does government get its perceived right to be better armed than its citizens or to regulate their basic human rights?


----------



## danielpalos

Dan Daly said:


> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought you were still referring to the tangent. We have a natural right to shoot guns?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The right to keep and bear arms for the the defense of one's self, family and community is a basic human right that predates governments and constitutions.
> 
> Now riddle me this, where does government get its perceived right to be better armed than its citizens or to regulate their basic human rights?
Click to expand...

The socialism of a social Contract.


----------



## Dan Daly

danielpalos said:


> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought you were still referring to the tangent. We have a natural right to shoot guns?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The right to keep and bear arms for the the defense of one's self, family and community is a basic human right that predates governments and constitutions.
> 
> Now riddle me this, where does government get its perceived right to be better armed than its citizens or to regulate their basic human rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The socialism of a social Contract.
Click to expand...


Nice try, but no cigar.  But I do appreciate you admitting that Socialism is part of your repertoire.

Here is the bottom line, boy...no government can infringe upon your basic human rights unless they either use force or you let them.  Also, in this country the "contract" with government is clearly stated in the Constitution...which clearly does not grant them any rights to be better armed than the citizens they derive their consent to govern from.  

If you want to give away your rights, fine, that is your problem, but when you start trying to take away the rights of others, using government as your proxy, we have a problem...and you won't like the solution.


----------



## danielpalos

Dan Daly said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought you were still referring to the tangent. We have a natural right to shoot guns?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The right to keep and bear arms for the the defense of one's self, family and community is a basic human right that predates governments and constitutions.
> 
> Now riddle me this, where does government get its perceived right to be better armed than its citizens or to regulate their basic human rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The socialism of a social Contract.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice try, but no cigar.  But I do appreciate you admitting that Socialism is part of your repertoire.
> 
> Here is the bottom line, boy...no government can infringe upon your basic human rights unless they either use force or you let them.  Also, in this country the "contract" with government is clearly stated in the Constitution...which clearly does not grant them any rights to be better armed than the citizens they derive their consent to govern from.
> 
> If you want to give away your rights, fine, that is your problem, but when you start trying to take away the rights of others, using government as your proxy, we have a problem...and you won't like the solution.
Click to expand...

Nothing but diversion?  This is socialism:_ Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers._


----------



## Wyld Kard

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.
> 
> What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?


 
Nay.  The 2nd Amendment shouldn't have to be modified for any reason.

It's fine as is.


----------



## Cecilie1200

danielpalos said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fine.  Produce writings from the Founding Fathers indicating it is so.  We'll wait.
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment was produced by our Founding Fathers;  there is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law as a privilege or immunity in our fine and glorious, Republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That does not produce the requested documentation, so off you go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude; the Intent and Purpose is in the first clause in our Second Article of Amendment.  There is no appeal to ignorance of that Intent and Purpose as a privilege and immunity for Persons in our fine and glorious Republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, that's your opinion, and utterly unsubstantisated by 1) the writings of the Founding Fathers, 2) the decisions of the courts since the Founding, 3) practice and application of the law since the Founding, and 4) common English grammar.
> 
> You're the only one "appealing to ignorance" here, and frankly, your ignorance is not the least bit appealing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nope; not my opinion, but legal fact.
Click to expand...


Really?  You should definitely drop a note to the Supreme Court to let them know, because they seem to think you're full of shit.


----------



## Cecilie1200

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is what I was talking about.
> 
> The liberal reading: _A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state_
> The conservative reading: _the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed_
> The actual text: _A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed._
> 
> The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state
> 
> 
> 
> That is NOT what the sentence says. An \English Professor already broke the sentence down. It says the right of the people shall not be infringed and lists as one of many POSSIBLE reasons a Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True.  Most likely because it's about the only reason that isn't already covered, explicitly or implicitly, in other places.
> 
> Point is, it really doesn't matter if the "because" referred to in the first clause of the Amendment is the necessity of militias or because guns are shiny and make loud noises.  No matter what that clause says, the second clause remains clear:  the right of the people shall not be infringed.  The government bureaucracy and departments are not "the people":  the individual citizens are, always have been and always will be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dears, only well regulated mitias of the People may not be infringed, due to their necessity to the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *only well regulated mitias of the People may not be infringed
> *
> That's strange, no one asked me for my militia ID card when I got my guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still nothing but diversion?  The natural right to acquire and possess private property, including the class called Arms, is secured in State Constitutions.
Click to expand...


Also in the US Constitution, to secure our rights from fools like you.


----------



## Cecilie1200

I'll be willing to discuss laws to limit gun ownership when Congress disarms all the security guards at the Capitol and the White House and puts up signs declaring them "gun-free zones", and relies on that to protect them.

Of course, during that discussion, my answer will still be "NO!"


----------



## danielpalos

Cecilie1200 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment was produced by our Founding Fathers;  there is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law as a privilege or immunity in our fine and glorious, Republic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That does not produce the requested documentation, so off you go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude; the Intent and Purpose is in the first clause in our Second Article of Amendment.  There is no appeal to ignorance of that Intent and Purpose as a privilege and immunity for Persons in our fine and glorious Republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, that's your opinion, and utterly unsubstantisated by 1) the writings of the Founding Fathers, 2) the decisions of the courts since the Founding, 3) practice and application of the law since the Founding, and 4) common English grammar.
> 
> You're the only one "appealing to ignorance" here, and frankly, your ignorance is not the least bit appealing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nope; not my opinion, but legal fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  You should definitely drop a note to the Supreme Court to let them know, because they seem to think you're full of shit.
Click to expand...

Projecting much, dear? It is those of the opposing view that have nothing but fallacy, and prove it in the public domain.


----------



## danielpalos

Cecilie1200 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is NOT what the sentence says. An \English Professor already broke the sentence down. It says the right of the people shall not be infringed and lists as one of many POSSIBLE reasons a Militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True.  Most likely because it's about the only reason that isn't already covered, explicitly or implicitly, in other places.
> 
> Point is, it really doesn't matter if the "because" referred to in the first clause of the Amendment is the necessity of militias or because guns are shiny and make loud noises.  No matter what that clause says, the second clause remains clear:  the right of the people shall not be infringed.  The government bureaucracy and departments are not "the people":  the individual citizens are, always have been and always will be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dears, only well regulated mitias of the People may not be infringed, due to their necessity to the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *only well regulated mitias of the People may not be infringed
> *
> That's strange, no one asked me for my militia ID card when I got my guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still nothing but diversion?  The natural right to acquire and possess private property, including the class called Arms, is secured in State Constitutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Also in the US Constitution, to secure our rights from fools like you.
Click to expand...

With what?  You have nothing but fallacy.  There are no Individual terms in our Second Amendment.  Militia and People are collective, not Individual, should we need to quibble in legal venues.


----------



## Cecilie1200

danielpalos said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> That does not produce the requested documentation, so off you go.
> 
> 
> 
> Dude; the Intent and Purpose is in the first clause in our Second Article of Amendment.  There is no appeal to ignorance of that Intent and Purpose as a privilege and immunity for Persons in our fine and glorious Republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, that's your opinion, and utterly unsubstantisated by 1) the writings of the Founding Fathers, 2) the decisions of the courts since the Founding, 3) practice and application of the law since the Founding, and 4) common English grammar.
> 
> You're the only one "appealing to ignorance" here, and frankly, your ignorance is not the least bit appealing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nope; not my opinion, but legal fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  You should definitely drop a note to the Supreme Court to let them know, because they seem to think you're full of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Projecting much, dear? It is those of the opposing view that have nothing but fallacy, and prove it in the public domain.
Click to expand...


Projecting?  Has anyone ever bothered to tell you that there's nothing clever about parroting what other people say with no regard to relevance?


----------



## Cecilie1200

danielpalos said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> True.  Most likely because it's about the only reason that isn't already covered, explicitly or implicitly, in other places.
> 
> Point is, it really doesn't matter if the "because" referred to in the first clause of the Amendment is the necessity of militias or because guns are shiny and make loud noises.  No matter what that clause says, the second clause remains clear:  the right of the people shall not be infringed.  The government bureaucracy and departments are not "the people":  the individual citizens are, always have been and always will be.
> 
> 
> 
> dears, only well regulated mitias of the People may not be infringed, due to their necessity to the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *only well regulated mitias of the People may not be infringed
> *
> That's strange, no one asked me for my militia ID card when I got my guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still nothing but diversion?  The natural right to acquire and possess private property, including the class called Arms, is secured in State Constitutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Also in the US Constitution, to secure our rights from fools like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> With what?  You have nothing but fallacy.  There are no Individual terms in our Second Amendment.  Militia and People are collective, not Individual, should we need to quibble in legal venues.
Click to expand...


"People" is never used in the Constitution to mean any sort of collective group.  It always refers to the individual citizens of the United States.  Yes, there are a lot of us, but don't let that confuse you any more than you can help.

No need to quibble anywhere.  The Supreme Court issued a ruling that the Second Amendment is an individual right.  We have no need to compromise with you in the slightest bit on anything, nor will we.  End of story.


----------



## danielpalos

Cecilie1200 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude; the Intent and Purpose is in the first clause in our Second Article of Amendment.  There is no appeal to ignorance of that Intent and Purpose as a privilege and immunity for Persons in our fine and glorious Republic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, that's your opinion, and utterly unsubstantisated by 1) the writings of the Founding Fathers, 2) the decisions of the courts since the Founding, 3) practice and application of the law since the Founding, and 4) common English grammar.
> 
> You're the only one "appealing to ignorance" here, and frankly, your ignorance is not the least bit appealing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nope; not my opinion, but legal fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  You should definitely drop a note to the Supreme Court to let them know, because they seem to think you're full of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Projecting much, dear? It is those of the opposing view that have nothing but fallacy, and prove it in the public domain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Projecting?  Has anyone ever bothered to tell you that there's nothing clever about parroting what other people say with no regard to relevance?
Click to expand...

Still projecting with nothing but diversion and that form of fallacy, dear?


----------



## danielpalos

Cecilie1200 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> dears, only well regulated mitias of the People may not be infringed, due to their necessity to the security of a free State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *only well regulated mitias of the People may not be infringed
> *
> That's strange, no one asked me for my militia ID card when I got my guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still nothing but diversion?  The natural right to acquire and possess private property, including the class called Arms, is secured in State Constitutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Also in the US Constitution, to secure our rights from fools like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> With what?  You have nothing but fallacy.  There are no Individual terms in our Second Amendment.  Militia and People are collective, not Individual, should we need to quibble in legal venues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "People" is never used in the Constitution to mean any sort of collective group.  It always refers to the individual citizens of the United States.  Yes, there are a lot of us, but don't let that confuse you any more than you can help.
> 
> No need to quibble anywhere.  The Supreme Court issued a ruling that the Second Amendment is an individual right.  We have no need to compromise with you in the slightest bit on anything, nor will we.  End of story.
Click to expand...

Sorry dear, it is about collective rights secured by our Tenth and Ninth Amendments, should this specific issue need to be quibbled in specifically legal venues.


----------



## Cecilie1200

danielpalos said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, that's your opinion, and utterly unsubstantisated by 1) the writings of the Founding Fathers, 2) the decisions of the courts since the Founding, 3) practice and application of the law since the Founding, and 4) common English grammar.
> 
> You're the only one "appealing to ignorance" here, and frankly, your ignorance is not the least bit appealing.
> 
> 
> 
> nope; not my opinion, but legal fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  You should definitely drop a note to the Supreme Court to let them know, because they seem to think you're full of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Projecting much, dear? It is those of the opposing view that have nothing but fallacy, and prove it in the public domain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Projecting?  Has anyone ever bothered to tell you that there's nothing clever about parroting what other people say with no regard to relevance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still projecting with nothing but diversion and that form of fallacy, dear?
Click to expand...


Still spitting random fancy words in an attempt to impress people, loser?


----------



## Cecilie1200

danielpalos said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *only well regulated mitias of the People may not be infringed
> *
> That's strange, no one asked me for my militia ID card when I got my guns.
> 
> 
> 
> Still nothing but diversion?  The natural right to acquire and possess private property, including the class called Arms, is secured in State Constitutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Also in the US Constitution, to secure our rights from fools like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> With what?  You have nothing but fallacy.  There are no Individual terms in our Second Amendment.  Militia and People are collective, not Individual, should we need to quibble in legal venues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "People" is never used in the Constitution to mean any sort of collective group.  It always refers to the individual citizens of the United States.  Yes, there are a lot of us, but don't let that confuse you any more than you can help.
> 
> No need to quibble anywhere.  The Supreme Court issued a ruling that the Second Amendment is an individual right.  We have no need to compromise with you in the slightest bit on anything, nor will we.  End of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry dear, it is about collective rights secured by our Tenth and Ninth Amendments, should this specific issue need to be quibbled in specifically legal venues.
Click to expand...


Sorry, asshole, but you don't get to simply dismiss the Second Amendment because you've decided it's unnecessary.  You and your putrescent ilk are the reason that it is.


----------



## danielpalos

Cecilie1200 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> nope; not my opinion, but legal fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  You should definitely drop a note to the Supreme Court to let them know, because they seem to think you're full of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Projecting much, dear? It is those of the opposing view that have nothing but fallacy, and prove it in the public domain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Projecting?  Has anyone ever bothered to tell you that there's nothing clever about parroting what other people say with no regard to relevance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still projecting with nothing but diversion and that form of fallacy, dear?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still spitting random fancy words in an attempt to impress people, loser?
Click to expand...

Still not resorting to fallacy, unlike yourself.


----------



## danielpalos

Cecilie1200 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still nothing but diversion?  The natural right to acquire and possess private property, including the class called Arms, is secured in State Constitutions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also in the US Constitution, to secure our rights from fools like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> With what?  You have nothing but fallacy.  There are no Individual terms in our Second Amendment.  Militia and People are collective, not Individual, should we need to quibble in legal venues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "People" is never used in the Constitution to mean any sort of collective group.  It always refers to the individual citizens of the United States.  Yes, there are a lot of us, but don't let that confuse you any more than you can help.
> 
> No need to quibble anywhere.  The Supreme Court issued a ruling that the Second Amendment is an individual right.  We have no need to compromise with you in the slightest bit on anything, nor will we.  End of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry dear, it is about collective rights secured by our Tenth and Ninth Amendments, should this specific issue need to be quibbled in specifically legal venues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, asshole, but you don't get to simply dismiss the Second Amendment because you've decided it's unnecessary.  You and your putrescent ilk are the reason that it is.
Click to expand...

No dear.  I am not the one bearing false witness to our Second Article of Amendment. 

Simply because I can only be half as full of fallacy as you, even at my best.  Sincerely,  dp


----------



## Cecilie1200

danielpalos said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also in the US Constitution, to secure our rights from fools like you.
> 
> 
> 
> With what?  You have nothing but fallacy.  There are no Individual terms in our Second Amendment.  Militia and People are collective, not Individual, should we need to quibble in legal venues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "People" is never used in the Constitution to mean any sort of collective group.  It always refers to the individual citizens of the United States.  Yes, there are a lot of us, but don't let that confuse you any more than you can help.
> 
> No need to quibble anywhere.  The Supreme Court issued a ruling that the Second Amendment is an individual right.  We have no need to compromise with you in the slightest bit on anything, nor will we.  End of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry dear, it is about collective rights secured by our Tenth and Ninth Amendments, should this specific issue need to be quibbled in specifically legal venues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, asshole, but you don't get to simply dismiss the Second Amendment because you've decided it's unnecessary.  You and your putrescent ilk are the reason that it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No dear.  I am not the one bearing false witness to our Second Article of Amendment.
> 
> Simply because I can only be half as full of fallacy as you, even at my best.  Sincerely,  dp
Click to expand...


"I'm so wonderful, and you're wrong.  Proof?  We don't need no stinking proof.  I just know I'm awesome."

The law is the law, and it doesn't agree with you.  Absolutely no reason we should compromise, aka give you what you want and can't take, with nothing in return.

Case closed.  Argument over.  Pseudo-superior "dear" bullshit over.  FLUSH!


----------



## danielpalos

Cecilie1200 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> With what?  You have nothing but fallacy.  There are no Individual terms in our Second Amendment.  Militia and People are collective, not Individual, should we need to quibble in legal venues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "People" is never used in the Constitution to mean any sort of collective group.  It always refers to the individual citizens of the United States.  Yes, there are a lot of us, but don't let that confuse you any more than you can help.
> 
> No need to quibble anywhere.  The Supreme Court issued a ruling that the Second Amendment is an individual right.  We have no need to compromise with you in the slightest bit on anything, nor will we.  End of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry dear, it is about collective rights secured by our Tenth and Ninth Amendments, should this specific issue need to be quibbled in specifically legal venues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, asshole, but you don't get to simply dismiss the Second Amendment because you've decided it's unnecessary.  You and your putrescent ilk are the reason that it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No dear.  I am not the one bearing false witness to our Second Article of Amendment.
> 
> Simply because I can only be half as full of fallacy as you, even at my best.  Sincerely,  dp
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I'm so wonderful, and you're wrong.  Proof?  We don't need no stinking proof.  I just know I'm awesome."
> 
> The law is the law, and it doesn't agree with you.  Absolutely no reason we should compromise, aka give you what you want and can't take, with nothing in return.
> 
> Case closed.  Argument over.  Pseudo-superior "dear" bullshit over.  FLUSH!
Click to expand...

dear, it would help if you knew what you are talking about.  rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions with no militia requirement.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "People" is never used in the Constitution to mean any sort of collective group.  It always refers to the individual citizens of the United States.  Yes, there are a lot of us, but don't let that confuse you any more than you can help.
> 
> No need to quibble anywhere.  The Supreme Court issued a ruling that the Second Amendment is an individual right.  We have no need to compromise with you in the slightest bit on anything, nor will we.  End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry dear, it is about collective rights secured by our Tenth and Ninth Amendments, should this specific issue need to be quibbled in specifically legal venues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, asshole, but you don't get to simply dismiss the Second Amendment because you've decided it's unnecessary.  You and your putrescent ilk are the reason that it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No dear.  I am not the one bearing false witness to our Second Article of Amendment.
> 
> Simply because I can only be half as full of fallacy as you, even at my best.  Sincerely,  dp
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I'm so wonderful, and you're wrong.  Proof?  We don't need no stinking proof.  I just know I'm awesome."
> 
> The law is the law, and it doesn't agree with you.  Absolutely no reason we should compromise, aka give you what you want and can't take, with nothing in return.
> 
> Case closed.  Argument over.  Pseudo-superior "dear" bullshit over.  FLUSH!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, it would help if you knew what you are talking about.  rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions with no militia requirement.
Click to expand...

*
  rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions with no militia requirement.*

State Constitutions allow more rights than the US Constitution?


----------



## oldsoul

I am not sure if this has been said yet, as I do not have the time right now to read the entire thread, and am new to the forum.

It is my understanding that what the authors of this ammendment where attempting to preserve was the ability, or right, of the govered to effectively resist ANY attempt by the government to forcibly impose laws, regulations, ect. on the people, that the people, as a whole, did not agree with nor accept.

In effect it is one of many ways in which they where attempting to prevent the very tyranny they fought so hard, and risked so much, to be free from. So, to re-word it to allow gun ownership to those effectively "controlled" by ANY level of government would be akin to removing it entirely. Nice try though.


----------



## ChrisL

danielpalos said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "People" is never used in the Constitution to mean any sort of collective group.  It always refers to the individual citizens of the United States.  Yes, there are a lot of us, but don't let that confuse you any more than you can help.
> 
> No need to quibble anywhere.  The Supreme Court issued a ruling that the Second Amendment is an individual right.  We have no need to compromise with you in the slightest bit on anything, nor will we.  End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry dear, it is about collective rights secured by our Tenth and Ninth Amendments, should this specific issue need to be quibbled in specifically legal venues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, asshole, but you don't get to simply dismiss the Second Amendment because you've decided it's unnecessary.  You and your putrescent ilk are the reason that it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No dear.  I am not the one bearing false witness to our Second Article of Amendment.
> 
> Simply because I can only be half as full of fallacy as you, even at my best.  Sincerely,  dp
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I'm so wonderful, and you're wrong.  Proof?  We don't need no stinking proof.  I just know I'm awesome."
> 
> The law is the law, and it doesn't agree with you.  Absolutely no reason we should compromise, aka give you what you want and can't take, with nothing in return.
> 
> Case closed.  Argument over.  Pseudo-superior "dear" bullshit over.  FLUSH!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, it would help if you knew what you are talking about.  rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions with no militia requirement.
Click to expand...


So?  What is the point?  What does that have to do with the Second?


----------



## ChrisL

You know, trying to get a straight answer out of daniel is like . . . . I don't even know what.  Something very difficult.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry dear, it is about collective rights secured by our Tenth and Ninth Amendments, should this specific issue need to be quibbled in specifically legal venues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, asshole, but you don't get to simply dismiss the Second Amendment because you've decided it's unnecessary.  You and your putrescent ilk are the reason that it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No dear.  I am not the one bearing false witness to our Second Article of Amendment.
> 
> Simply because I can only be half as full of fallacy as you, even at my best.  Sincerely,  dp
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I'm so wonderful, and you're wrong.  Proof?  We don't need no stinking proof.  I just know I'm awesome."
> 
> The law is the law, and it doesn't agree with you.  Absolutely no reason we should compromise, aka give you what you want and can't take, with nothing in return.
> 
> Case closed.  Argument over.  Pseudo-superior "dear" bullshit over.  FLUSH!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, it would help if you knew what you are talking about.  rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions with no militia requirement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions with no militia requirement.*
> 
> State Constitutions allow more rights than the US Constitution?
Click to expand...

dear, State Constitutions recognize the concept of natural rights under our form of Government.


----------



## danielpalos

ChrisL said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry dear, it is about collective rights secured by our Tenth and Ninth Amendments, should this specific issue need to be quibbled in specifically legal venues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, asshole, but you don't get to simply dismiss the Second Amendment because you've decided it's unnecessary.  You and your putrescent ilk are the reason that it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No dear.  I am not the one bearing false witness to our Second Article of Amendment.
> 
> Simply because I can only be half as full of fallacy as you, even at my best.  Sincerely,  dp
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I'm so wonderful, and you're wrong.  Proof?  We don't need no stinking proof.  I just know I'm awesome."
> 
> The law is the law, and it doesn't agree with you.  Absolutely no reason we should compromise, aka give you what you want and can't take, with nothing in return.
> 
> Case closed.  Argument over.  Pseudo-superior "dear" bullshit over.  FLUSH!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, it would help if you knew what you are talking about.  rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions with no militia requirement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So?  What is the point?  What does that have to do with the Second?
Click to expand...

our Second Amendment secures no Individual rights in private property with the collective terms, militia and the people.


----------



## danielpalos

ChrisL said:


> You know, trying to get a straight answer out of daniel is like . . . . I don't even know what.  Something very difficult.


no, it isn't; you just need to ask.


----------



## ChrisL

danielpalos said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, asshole, but you don't get to simply dismiss the Second Amendment because you've decided it's unnecessary.  You and your putrescent ilk are the reason that it is.
> 
> 
> 
> No dear.  I am not the one bearing false witness to our Second Article of Amendment.
> 
> Simply because I can only be half as full of fallacy as you, even at my best.  Sincerely,  dp
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I'm so wonderful, and you're wrong.  Proof?  We don't need no stinking proof.  I just know I'm awesome."
> 
> The law is the law, and it doesn't agree with you.  Absolutely no reason we should compromise, aka give you what you want and can't take, with nothing in return.
> 
> Case closed.  Argument over.  Pseudo-superior "dear" bullshit over.  FLUSH!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, it would help if you knew what you are talking about.  rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions with no militia requirement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So?  What is the point?  What does that have to do with the Second?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> our Second Amendment secures no Individual rights in private property with the collective terms, militia and the people.
Click to expand...


So?  What does that have to do with the second amendment specifically?  the second amendment is NOT about "property" rights.


----------



## ChrisL

danielpalos said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know, trying to get a straight answer out of daniel is like . . . . I don't even know what.  Something very difficult.
> 
> 
> 
> no, it isn't; you just need to ask.
Click to expand...


I have and I do, and you don't make any sense.  You just string words together, ending up with little to no real meaning.  You have no clue and no cause.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, asshole, but you don't get to simply dismiss the Second Amendment because you've decided it's unnecessary.  You and your putrescent ilk are the reason that it is.
> 
> 
> 
> No dear.  I am not the one bearing false witness to our Second Article of Amendment.
> 
> Simply because I can only be half as full of fallacy as you, even at my best.  Sincerely,  dp
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I'm so wonderful, and you're wrong.  Proof?  We don't need no stinking proof.  I just know I'm awesome."
> 
> The law is the law, and it doesn't agree with you.  Absolutely no reason we should compromise, aka give you what you want and can't take, with nothing in return.
> 
> Case closed.  Argument over.  Pseudo-superior "dear" bullshit over.  FLUSH!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, it would help if you knew what you are talking about.  rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions with no militia requirement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions with no militia requirement.*
> 
> State Constitutions allow more rights than the US Constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, State Constitutions recognize the concept of natural rights under our form of Government.
Click to expand...


dear, the US Constitution recognizes the concept of natural rights under our form of Government.


----------



## danielpalos

ChrisL said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> No dear.  I am not the one bearing false witness to our Second Article of Amendment.
> 
> Simply because I can only be half as full of fallacy as you, even at my best.  Sincerely,  dp
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "I'm so wonderful, and you're wrong.  Proof?  We don't need no stinking proof.  I just know I'm awesome."
> 
> The law is the law, and it doesn't agree with you.  Absolutely no reason we should compromise, aka give you what you want and can't take, with nothing in return.
> 
> Case closed.  Argument over.  Pseudo-superior "dear" bullshit over.  FLUSH!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, it would help if you knew what you are talking about.  rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions with no militia requirement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So?  What is the point?  What does that have to do with the Second?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> our Second Amendment secures no Individual rights in private property with the collective terms, militia and the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So?  What does that have to do with the second amendment specifically?  the second amendment is NOT about "property" rights.
Click to expand...

no, dear; it is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a a free State.


----------



## danielpalos

ChrisL said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know, trying to get a straight answer out of daniel is like . . . . I don't even know what.  Something very difficult.
> 
> 
> 
> no, it isn't; you just need to ask.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have and I do, and you don't make any sense.  You just string words together, ending up with little to no real meaning.  You have no clue and no cause.
Click to expand...

i do; it is merely those of your point of view who don't get it, dear.


----------



## ChrisL

danielpalos said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "I'm so wonderful, and you're wrong.  Proof?  We don't need no stinking proof.  I just know I'm awesome."
> 
> The law is the law, and it doesn't agree with you.  Absolutely no reason we should compromise, aka give you what you want and can't take, with nothing in return.
> 
> Case closed.  Argument over.  Pseudo-superior "dear" bullshit over.  FLUSH!
> 
> 
> 
> dear, it would help if you knew what you are talking about.  rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions with no militia requirement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So?  What is the point?  What does that have to do with the Second?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> our Second Amendment secures no Individual rights in private property with the collective terms, militia and the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So?  What does that have to do with the second amendment specifically?  the second amendment is NOT about "property" rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, dear; it is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a a free State.
Click to expand...



A "free" state?  What do you mean by that.  What is necessary to the security of a free state?


----------



## ChrisL

danielpalos said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know, trying to get a straight answer out of daniel is like . . . . I don't even know what.  Something very difficult.
> 
> 
> 
> no, it isn't; you just need to ask.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have and I do, and you don't make any sense.  You just string words together, ending up with little to no real meaning.  You have no clue and no cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i do; it is merely those of your point of view who don't get it, dear.
Click to expand...


No, I'm sorry, but you don't make any sense.  Plenty of people have tried to tell you this, but you never clarify.


----------



## danielpalos

ChrisL said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> dear, it would help if you knew what you are talking about.  rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions with no militia requirement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So?  What is the point?  What does that have to do with the Second?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> our Second Amendment secures no Individual rights in private property with the collective terms, militia and the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So?  What does that have to do with the second amendment specifically?  the second amendment is NOT about "property" rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, dear; it is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A "free" state?  What do you mean by that.  What is necessary to the security of a free state?
Click to expand...

one that bears true witness to its own laws instead of having to bear truer witness to laws imposed by the general government, for being infidel, protestant, and renegade to our supreme law of the land.


----------



## danielpalos

ChrisL said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know, trying to get a straight answer out of daniel is like . . . . I don't even know what.  Something very difficult.
> 
> 
> 
> no, it isn't; you just need to ask.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have and I do, and you don't make any sense.  You just string words together, ending up with little to no real meaning.  You have no clue and no cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i do; it is merely those of your point of view who don't get it, dear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm sorry, but you don't make any sense.  Plenty of people have tried to tell you this, but you never clarify.
Click to expand...

yes dear, only the clueless and the Causeless don't get it.


----------



## ChrisL

danielpalos said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> So?  What is the point?  What does that have to do with the Second?
> 
> 
> 
> our Second Amendment secures no Individual rights in private property with the collective terms, militia and the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So?  What does that have to do with the second amendment specifically?  the second amendment is NOT about "property" rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, dear; it is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A "free" state?  What do you mean by that.  What is necessary to the security of a free state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> one that bears true witness to its own laws instead of having to bear truer witness to laws imposed by the general government, for being infidel, protestant, and renegade to our supreme law of the land.
Click to expand...


What laws are you referring to?  The second amendment is NOT a law.  It is a right.  It is right that is RECOGNIZED, not granted by the government.


----------



## ChrisL

danielpalos said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know, trying to get a straight answer out of daniel is like . . . . I don't even know what.  Something very difficult.
> 
> 
> 
> no, it isn't; you just need to ask.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have and I do, and you don't make any sense.  You just string words together, ending up with little to no real meaning.  You have no clue and no cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i do; it is merely those of your point of view who don't get it, dear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm sorry, but you don't make any sense.  Plenty of people have tried to tell you this, but you never clarify.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes dear, only the clueless and the Causeless don't get it.
Click to expand...


That must mean that you don't understand what you're saying.


----------



## danielpalos

ChrisL said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> our Second Amendment secures no Individual rights in private property with the collective terms, militia and the people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So?  What does that have to do with the second amendment specifically?  the second amendment is NOT about "property" rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, dear; it is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A "free" state?  What do you mean by that.  What is necessary to the security of a free state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> one that bears true witness to its own laws instead of having to bear truer witness to laws imposed by the general government, for being infidel, protestant, and renegade to our supreme law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What laws are you referring to?  The second amendment is NOT a law.  It is a right.  It is right that is RECOGNIZED, not granted by the government.
Click to expand...

our second article of amendment, dear.  that is what thread is about.


----------



## danielpalos

ChrisL said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> no, it isn't; you just need to ask.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have and I do, and you don't make any sense.  You just string words together, ending up with little to no real meaning.  You have no clue and no cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i do; it is merely those of your point of view who don't get it, dear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm sorry, but you don't make any sense.  Plenty of people have tried to tell you this, but you never clarify.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes dear, only the clueless and the Causeless don't get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That must mean that you don't understand what you're saying.
Click to expand...

sorry dear; i get it.


----------



## ChrisL

danielpalos said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> So?  What does that have to do with the second amendment specifically?  the second amendment is NOT about "property" rights.
> 
> 
> 
> no, dear; it is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A "free" state?  What do you mean by that.  What is necessary to the security of a free state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> one that bears true witness to its own laws instead of having to bear truer witness to laws imposed by the general government, for being infidel, protestant, and renegade to our supreme law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What laws are you referring to?  The second amendment is NOT a law.  It is a right.  It is right that is RECOGNIZED, not granted by the government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> our second article of amendment, dear.  that is what thread is about.
Click to expand...


What about it?


----------



## danielpalos

ChrisL said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> no, dear; it is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a a free State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A "free" state?  What do you mean by that.  What is necessary to the security of a free state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> one that bears true witness to its own laws instead of having to bear truer witness to laws imposed by the general government, for being infidel, protestant, and renegade to our supreme law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What laws are you referring to?  The second amendment is NOT a law.  It is a right.  It is right that is RECOGNIZED, not granted by the government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> our second article of amendment, dear.  that is what thread is about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about it?
Click to expand...

it is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a a free State.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

ChrisL said:


> You know, trying to get a straight answer out of daniel is like . . . . I don't even know what.  Something very difficult.



  No surprise.  The creepy way that he continues to address other males as “dear”, in such a manner as to suggest a sexual interest, would seem to indicate that he is anything but “straight”, and therefore, that a “straight” answer is not ever to be expected from him.


----------



## danielpalos

Bob Blaylock said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know, trying to get a straight answer out of daniel is like . . . . I don't even know what.  Something very difficult.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No surprise.  The creepy way that he continues to address other males as “dear”, in such a manner as to suggest a sexual interest, would seem to indicate that he is anything but “straight”, and therefore, that a “straight” answer is not ever to be expected from him.
Click to expand...

No surprise here that those who are full of fallacy object to those who are not.


----------



## ChrisL

danielpalos said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> A "free" state?  What do you mean by that.  What is necessary to the security of a free state?
> 
> 
> 
> one that bears true witness to its own laws instead of having to bear truer witness to laws imposed by the general government, for being infidel, protestant, and renegade to our supreme law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What laws are you referring to?  The second amendment is NOT a law.  It is a right.  It is right that is RECOGNIZED, not granted by the government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> our second article of amendment, dear.  that is what thread is about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a a free State.
Click to expand...


So?  What's your point?  It's a right and not a law.  The founders recognized our rights as natural and NOT to be granted by governmental entities.  IOW, our rights existed long before any governments were created by men.


----------



## ChrisL

Bob Blaylock said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know, trying to get a straight answer out of daniel is like . . . . I don't even know what.  Something very difficult.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No surprise.  The creepy way that he continues to address other males as “dear”, in such a manner as to suggest a sexual interest, would seem to indicate that he is anything but “straight”, and therefore, that a “straight” answer is not ever to be expected from him.
Click to expand...


I'm going to get an answer that makes sense if it kills me!


----------



## danielpalos

ChrisL said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> one that bears true witness to its own laws instead of having to bear truer witness to laws imposed by the general government, for being infidel, protestant, and renegade to our supreme law of the land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What laws are you referring to?  The second amendment is NOT a law.  It is a right.  It is right that is RECOGNIZED, not granted by the government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> our second article of amendment, dear.  that is what thread is about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So?  What's your point?  It's a right and not a law.  The founders recognized our rights as natural and NOT to be granted by governmental entities.  IOW, our rights existed long before any governments were created by men.
Click to expand...

no dear, it is not about Individual rights, but about the security of a free State and what is necessary to achieve that End.


----------



## ChrisL

danielpalos said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> What laws are you referring to?  The second amendment is NOT a law.  It is a right.  It is right that is RECOGNIZED, not granted by the government.
> 
> 
> 
> our second article of amendment, dear.  that is what thread is about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So?  What's your point?  It's a right and not a law.  The founders recognized our rights as natural and NOT to be granted by governmental entities.  IOW, our rights existed long before any governments were created by men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no dear, it is not about Individual rights, but about the security of a free State and what is necessary to achieve that End.
Click to expand...


The Supreme Court disagrees, as do ALL the founding fathers documents and thoughts (included in the federalist papers) that were written down regarding the second amendment, in which they clearly agree that the right to individuals to own guns is a natural right, not to be infringed upon by the government.


----------



## ChrisL

danielpalos said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> What laws are you referring to?  The second amendment is NOT a law.  It is a right.  It is right that is RECOGNIZED, not granted by the government.
> 
> 
> 
> our second article of amendment, dear.  that is what thread is about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So?  What's your point?  It's a right and not a law.  The founders recognized our rights as natural and NOT to be granted by governmental entities.  IOW, our rights existed long before any governments were created by men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no dear, it is not about Individual rights, but about the security of a free State and what is necessary to achieve that End.
Click to expand...


Now, I as well as others have indeed posted the Federalist papers here on this very thread, I believe.  Did you just ignore them so that you can continue on with your nonsensical rants?


----------



## danielpalos

ChrisL said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> our second article of amendment, dear.  that is what thread is about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So?  What's your point?  It's a right and not a law.  The founders recognized our rights as natural and NOT to be granted by governmental entities.  IOW, our rights existed long before any governments were created by men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no dear, it is not about Individual rights, but about the security of a free State and what is necessary to achieve that End.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court disagrees, as do ALL the founding fathers documents and thoughts (included in the federalist papers) that were written down regarding the second amendment, in which they clearly agree that the right to individuals to own guns is a natural right, not to be infringed upon by the government.
Click to expand...

There are no Individual rights with the collective terms, militia and the People.  It is a simple error in reasoning.


----------



## danielpalos

ChrisL said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> our second article of amendment, dear.  that is what thread is about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So?  What's your point?  It's a right and not a law.  The founders recognized our rights as natural and NOT to be granted by governmental entities.  IOW, our rights existed long before any governments were created by men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no dear, it is not about Individual rights, but about the security of a free State and what is necessary to achieve that End.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now, I as well as others have indeed posted the Federalist papers here on this very thread, I believe.  Did you just ignore them so that you can continue on with your nonsensical rants?
Click to expand...

dear, the federalist papers support my contention, not yours.


----------



## ChrisL

danielpalos said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about it?
> 
> 
> 
> it is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So?  What's your point?  It's a right and not a law.  The founders recognized our rights as natural and NOT to be granted by governmental entities.  IOW, our rights existed long before any governments were created by men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no dear, it is not about Individual rights, but about the security of a free State and what is necessary to achieve that End.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court disagrees, as do ALL the founding fathers documents and thoughts (included in the federalist papers) that were written down regarding the second amendment, in which they clearly agree that the right to individuals to own guns is a natural right, not to be infringed upon by the government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are no Individual rights with the collective terms, militia and the People.  It is a simple error in reasoning.
Click to expand...


You are certainly wrong.  You need to read the Federalist papers where the founders CLEARLY state that the right to bear arms is a natural right that extends to ALL citizens.


----------



## ChrisL

danielpalos said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about it?
> 
> 
> 
> it is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So?  What's your point?  It's a right and not a law.  The founders recognized our rights as natural and NOT to be granted by governmental entities.  IOW, our rights existed long before any governments were created by men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no dear, it is not about Individual rights, but about the security of a free State and what is necessary to achieve that End.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now, I as well as others have indeed posted the Federalist papers here on this very thread, I believe.  Did you just ignore them so that you can continue on with your nonsensical rants?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, the federalist papers support my contention, not yours.
Click to expand...


That's a lie.  Where do they support your contention?  Quote the section and link to it please.


----------



## ChrisL

danielpalos said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about it?
> 
> 
> 
> it is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So?  What's your point?  It's a right and not a law.  The founders recognized our rights as natural and NOT to be granted by governmental entities.  IOW, our rights existed long before any governments were created by men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no dear, it is not about Individual rights, but about the security of a free State and what is necessary to achieve that End.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now, I as well as others have indeed posted the Federalist papers here on this very thread, I believe.  Did you just ignore them so that you can continue on with your nonsensical rants?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, the federalist papers support my contention, not yours.
Click to expand...


I can quote and link to sections that support my statements.  Can you?  

The Founding Fathers on the Second Amendment

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves… and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms… The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle.” – _Letters From the Federal Farmer to the Republican_, Letter XVIII, January 25, 1788

“(W)hereas, 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 nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.” – _Federal Farmer_, Anti-Federalist Letter, No.18, _The Pennsylvania Gazette_, February 20, 1788

“No free government was ever founded, or ever preserved its liberty, without uniting the characters of the citizen and soldier in those destined for the defense of the state…such area well-regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen.” – Richard Henry Lee, State Gazette (Charleston), September 8, 1788


----------



## danielpalos

ChrisL said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a a free State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So?  What's your point?  It's a right and not a law.  The founders recognized our rights as natural and NOT to be granted by governmental entities.  IOW, our rights existed long before any governments were created by men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no dear, it is not about Individual rights, but about the security of a free State and what is necessary to achieve that End.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now, I as well as others have indeed posted the Federalist papers here on this very thread, I believe.  Did you just ignore them so that you can continue on with your nonsensical rants?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, the federalist papers support my contention, not yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a lie.  Where do they support your contention?  Quote the section and link to it please.
Click to expand...

dear, you are the one that claims otherwise; cite yours.


----------



## ChrisL

danielpalos said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> So?  What's your point?  It's a right and not a law.  The founders recognized our rights as natural and NOT to be granted by governmental entities.  IOW, our rights existed long before any governments were created by men.
> 
> 
> 
> no dear, it is not about Individual rights, but about the security of a free State and what is necessary to achieve that End.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now, I as well as others have indeed posted the Federalist papers here on this very thread, I believe.  Did you just ignore them so that you can continue on with your nonsensical rants?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, the federalist papers support my contention, not yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a lie.  Where do they support your contention?  Quote the section and link to it please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, you are the one that claims otherwise; cite yours.
Click to expand...


I just did, idiot.


----------



## danielpalos

ChrisL said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a a free State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So?  What's your point?  It's a right and not a law.  The founders recognized our rights as natural and NOT to be granted by governmental entities.  IOW, our rights existed long before any governments were created by men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no dear, it is not about Individual rights, but about the security of a free State and what is necessary to achieve that End.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now, I as well as others have indeed posted the Federalist papers here on this very thread, I believe.  Did you just ignore them so that you can continue on with your nonsensical rants?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, the federalist papers support my contention, not yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can quote and link to sections that support my statements.  Can you?
> 
> The Founding Fathers on the Second Amendment
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves… and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms… The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle.” – _Letters From the Federal Farmer to the Republican_, Letter XVIII, January 25, 1788
> 
> “(W)hereas, 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 nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.” – _Federal Farmer_, Anti-Federalist Letter, No.18, _The Pennsylvania Gazette_, February 20, 1788
> 
> “No free government was ever founded, or ever preserved its liberty, without uniting the characters of the citizen and soldier in those destined for the defense of the state…such area well-regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen.” – Richard Henry Lee, State Gazette (Charleston), September 8, 1788
Click to expand...

dear, all of those authors support my contention that there are no Individual rights with the terms, militia and the People.


----------



## danielpalos

ChrisL said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> no dear, it is not about Individual rights, but about the security of a free State and what is necessary to achieve that End.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, I as well as others have indeed posted the Federalist papers here on this very thread, I believe.  Did you just ignore them so that you can continue on with your nonsensical rants?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, the federalist papers support my contention, not yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a lie.  Where do they support your contention?  Quote the section and link to it please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, you are the one that claims otherwise; cite yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just did, idiot.
Click to expand...

no dear, you didn't.  you merely claimed you did, like all of the other ones.


----------



## ChrisL

danielpalos said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> So?  What's your point?  It's a right and not a law.  The founders recognized our rights as natural and NOT to be granted by governmental entities.  IOW, our rights existed long before any governments were created by men.
> 
> 
> 
> no dear, it is not about Individual rights, but about the security of a free State and what is necessary to achieve that End.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now, I as well as others have indeed posted the Federalist papers here on this very thread, I believe.  Did you just ignore them so that you can continue on with your nonsensical rants?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, the federalist papers support my contention, not yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can quote and link to sections that support my statements.  Can you?
> 
> The Founding Fathers on the Second Amendment
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves… and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms… The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle.” – _Letters From the Federal Farmer to the Republican_, Letter XVIII, January 25, 1788
> 
> “(W)hereas, 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 nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.” – _Federal Farmer_, Anti-Federalist Letter, No.18, _The Pennsylvania Gazette_, February 20, 1788
> 
> “No free government was ever founded, or ever preserved its liberty, without uniting the characters of the citizen and soldier in those destined for the defense of the state…such area well-regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen.” – Richard Henry Lee, State Gazette (Charleston), September 8, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, all of those authors support my contention that there are no Individual rights with the terms, militia and the People.
Click to expand...


I don't think you know how to read or comprehend what you are reading.  Clearly, the intention is that every able-bodied American would be a part of the "militia" and that men have the right to bear arms for self defense.  Shall I bold it for you?  Maybe that would lessen your confusion and make it more simple for you to understand what it is you are reading?  


*such area well-regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen.*” – Richard Henry Lee, State Gazette (Charleston), September 8, 1788


----------



## ChrisL

danielpalos said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, I as well as others have indeed posted the Federalist papers here on this very thread, I believe.  Did you just ignore them so that you can continue on with your nonsensical rants?
> 
> 
> 
> dear, the federalist papers support my contention, not yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a lie.  Where do they support your contention?  Quote the section and link to it please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, you are the one that claims otherwise; cite yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just did, idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no dear, you didn't.  you merely claimed you did, like all of the other ones.
Click to expand...


Wrong as usual.  I quoted it again in post #485.  Now, try acting your age and not your shoe size and address the quote.


----------



## ChrisL

“False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. Laws that forbid the carrying of arms 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 act rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” – Quoting Cesare Beccaria, _On Crimes and Punishment_

“No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands].” – Proposed Constitution for Virginia – Fair Copy, Section IV:_Rights, Private and Public_, June 1776; _The Works of Thomas Jefferson_, Federal Edition, Editor: Paul Leicester Ford, (New York and London, G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1904-5); Vol. 2

“A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks.” – Letter to Peter Carr, 1785; _The Letters of Thomas Jefferson: 1743-1826_, Electronic Text Center of University of Virginia

“[W]hat 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.” – Letter to William Stephens Smith, November 13, 1787; _The Works of Thomas Jefferson_, Federal Edition (New York and London, G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1904-5) Vol. 5

“The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen ; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press.” – Letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824; “The Writings of Thomas Jefferson,” Definitive Edition, Albert Bergh, editor (Washington, D. C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Assoc., 1904), Vol. XVI, p. 45

“We established however some, although not all its important principles. The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press.” – Letter to Major John Cartwright, Monticello, June 5, 1824; _Writings of Thomas Jefferson_, Albert Ellery Bergh, ed., 19 vol. (1905)


----------



## ChrisL

So daniel?  Are you trying to convince us that free men in the 1700s and 1800s were NOT packing heat, that it was illegal for them to do so and unconstitutional?  What a load of crapola.  If the goal was to allow governmental control over weapons, why were ALL men armed during that time period?


----------



## danielpalos

ChrisL said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> no dear, it is not about Individual rights, but about the security of a free State and what is necessary to achieve that End.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, I as well as others have indeed posted the Federalist papers here on this very thread, I believe.  Did you just ignore them so that you can continue on with your nonsensical rants?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, the federalist papers support my contention, not yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can quote and link to sections that support my statements.  Can you?
> 
> The Founding Fathers on the Second Amendment
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves… and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms… The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle.” – _Letters From the Federal Farmer to the Republican_, Letter XVIII, January 25, 1788
> 
> “(W)hereas, 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 nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.” – _Federal Farmer_, Anti-Federalist Letter, No.18, _The Pennsylvania Gazette_, February 20, 1788
> 
> “No free government was ever founded, or ever preserved its liberty, without uniting the characters of the citizen and soldier in those destined for the defense of the state…such area well-regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen.” – Richard Henry Lee, State Gazette (Charleston), September 8, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, all of those authors support my contention that there are no Individual rights with the terms, militia and the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think you know how to read or comprehend what you are reading.  Clearly, the intention is that every able-bodied American would be a part of the "militia" and that men have the right to bear arms for self defense.  Shall I bold it for you?  Maybe that would lessen your confusion and make it more simple for you to understand what it is you are reading?
> 
> 
> *such area well-regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen.*” – Richard Henry Lee, State Gazette (Charleston), September 8, 1788
Click to expand...

dear, militia and the People are the terms used, not Individuals or Persons.


----------



## danielpalos

ChrisL said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> dear, the federalist papers support my contention, not yours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a lie.  Where do they support your contention?  Quote the section and link to it please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, you are the one that claims otherwise; cite yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just did, idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no dear, you didn't.  you merely claimed you did, like all of the other ones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong as usual.  I quoted it again in post #485.  Now, try acting your age and not your shoe size and address the quote.
Click to expand...

dear, what is the militia and how can Individuals be unconnected with it?  individuals may _only_ be unconnected with militia service, well regulated; not the militia of a State or the Union.


----------



## danielpalos

ChrisL said:


> “False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. Laws that forbid the carrying of arms 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 act rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” – Quoting Cesare Beccaria, _On Crimes and Punishment_
> 
> “No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands].” – Proposed Constitution for Virginia – Fair Copy, Section IV:_Rights, Private and Public_, June 1776; _The Works of Thomas Jefferson_, Federal Edition, Editor: Paul Leicester Ford, (New York and London, G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1904-5); Vol. 2
> 
> “A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks.” – Letter to Peter Carr, 1785; _The Letters of Thomas Jefferson: 1743-1826_, Electronic Text Center of University of Virginia
> 
> “[W]hat 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.” – Letter to William Stephens Smith, November 13, 1787; _The Works of Thomas Jefferson_, Federal Edition (New York and London, G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1904-5) Vol. 5
> 
> “The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen ; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press.” – Letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824; “The Writings of Thomas Jefferson,” Definitive Edition, Albert Bergh, editor (Washington, D. C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Assoc., 1904), Vol. XVI, p. 45
> 
> “We established however some, although not all its important principles. The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press.” – Letter to Major John Cartwright, Monticello, June 5, 1824; _Writings of Thomas Jefferson_, Albert Ellery Bergh, ed., 19 vol. (1905)


dear, hearsay and soothsay is simply that; the terms are clearly enumerated in our Second Amendment.


----------



## danielpalos

ChrisL said:


> So daniel?  Are you trying to convince us that free men in the 1700s and 1800s were NOT packing heat, that it was illegal for them to do so and unconstitutional?  What a load of crapola.  If the goal was to allow governmental control over weapons, why were ALL men armed during that time period?


not at all; that is only the red herring argument of the clueless and the Causeless.


----------



## ChrisL

danielpalos said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> “False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. Laws that forbid the carrying of arms 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 act rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” – Quoting Cesare Beccaria, _On Crimes and Punishment_
> 
> “No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands].” – Proposed Constitution for Virginia – Fair Copy, Section IV:_Rights, Private and Public_, June 1776; _The Works of Thomas Jefferson_, Federal Edition, Editor: Paul Leicester Ford, (New York and London, G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1904-5); Vol. 2
> 
> “A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks.” – Letter to Peter Carr, 1785; _The Letters of Thomas Jefferson: 1743-1826_, Electronic Text Center of University of Virginia
> 
> “[W]hat 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.” – Letter to William Stephens Smith, November 13, 1787; _The Works of Thomas Jefferson_, Federal Edition (New York and London, G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1904-5) Vol. 5
> 
> “The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen ; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press.” – Letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824; “The Writings of Thomas Jefferson,” Definitive Edition, Albert Bergh, editor (Washington, D. C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Assoc., 1904), Vol. XVI, p. 45
> 
> “We established however some, although not all its important principles. The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press.” – Letter to Major John Cartwright, Monticello, June 5, 1824; _Writings of Thomas Jefferson_, Albert Ellery Bergh, ed., 19 vol. (1905)
> 
> 
> 
> dear, hearsay and soothsay is simply that; the terms are clearly enumerated in our Second Amendment.
Click to expand...


Exactly.  The SC has defined those to include the individual right to self defense.


----------



## ChrisL

danielpalos said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> So daniel?  Are you trying to convince us that free men in the 1700s and 1800s were NOT packing heat, that it was illegal for them to do so and unconstitutional?  What a load of crapola.  If the goal was to allow governmental control over weapons, why were ALL men armed during that time period?
> 
> 
> 
> not at all; that is only the red herring argument of the clueless and the Causeless.
Click to expand...


Well, considering that you cannot support your argument with any kind of documentation and considering the fact that free men did in fact carry arms before, during and after the constitution and BOR were written and created, it is quite obvious which one of us is clueless and it certainly is not me.


----------



## hunarcy

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.
> 
> What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?



You start from a false premise.  The militia is not an issue.

It's the right of the PEOPLE not the right of the militia.


----------



## hunarcy

danielpalos said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> So?  What's your point?  It's a right and not a law.  The founders recognized our rights as natural and NOT to be granted by governmental entities.  IOW, our rights existed long before any governments were created by men.
> 
> 
> 
> no dear, it is not about Individual rights, but about the security of a free State and what is necessary to achieve that End.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now, I as well as others have indeed posted the Federalist papers here on this very thread, I believe.  Did you just ignore them so that you can continue on with your nonsensical rants?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, the federalist papers support my contention, not yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can quote and link to sections that support my statements.  Can you?
> 
> The Founding Fathers on the Second Amendment
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves… and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms… The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle.” – _Letters From the Federal Farmer to the Republican_, Letter XVIII, January 25, 1788
> 
> “(W)hereas, 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 nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.” – _Federal Farmer_, Anti-Federalist Letter, No.18, _The Pennsylvania Gazette_, February 20, 1788
> 
> “No free government was ever founded, or ever preserved its liberty, without uniting the characters of the citizen and soldier in those destined for the defense of the state…such area well-regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen.” – Richard Henry Lee, State Gazette (Charleston), September 8, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, all of those authors support my contention that there are no Individual rights with the terms, militia and the People.
Click to expand...



 "the people" means each citizen.  Are you saying that each citizen is not an individual?  Or, are you claiming that " the people's" freedom of speech and writing is limited to those who posses a printing press or to works appearing in the news media and individuals do not possess the freedom of speech?


----------



## hunarcy

ChrisL said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know, trying to get a straight answer out of daniel is like . . . . I don't even know what.  Something very difficult.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No surprise.  The creepy way that he continues to address other males as “dear”, in such a manner as to suggest a sexual interest, would seem to indicate that he is anything but “straight”, and therefore, that a “straight” answer is not ever to be expected from him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm going to get an answer that makes sense if it kills me!
Click to expand...


He clearly is willing to lie to continue the debate, so you may not ever get an answer that makes sense.


----------



## danielpalos

ChrisL said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> “False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. Laws that forbid the carrying of arms 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 act rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” – Quoting Cesare Beccaria, _On Crimes and Punishment_
> 
> “No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands].” – Proposed Constitution for Virginia – Fair Copy, Section IV:_Rights, Private and Public_, June 1776; _The Works of Thomas Jefferson_, Federal Edition, Editor: Paul Leicester Ford, (New York and London, G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1904-5); Vol. 2
> 
> “A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks.” – Letter to Peter Carr, 1785; _The Letters of Thomas Jefferson: 1743-1826_, Electronic Text Center of University of Virginia
> 
> “[W]hat 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.” – Letter to William Stephens Smith, November 13, 1787; _The Works of Thomas Jefferson_, Federal Edition (New York and London, G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1904-5) Vol. 5
> 
> “The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen ; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press.” – Letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824; “The Writings of Thomas Jefferson,” Definitive Edition, Albert Bergh, editor (Washington, D. C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Assoc., 1904), Vol. XVI, p. 45
> 
> “We established however some, although not all its important principles. The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press.” – Letter to Major John Cartwright, Monticello, June 5, 1824; _Writings of Thomas Jefferson_, Albert Ellery Bergh, ed., 19 vol. (1905)
> 
> 
> 
> dear, hearsay and soothsay is simply that; the terms are clearly enumerated in our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly.  The SC has defined those to include the individual right to self defense.
Click to expand...

from where?  posse comitatus is common law; not, the militia of a State or the Union.


----------



## danielpalos

ChrisL said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> So daniel?  Are you trying to convince us that free men in the 1700s and 1800s were NOT packing heat, that it was illegal for them to do so and unconstitutional?  What a load of crapola.  If the goal was to allow governmental control over weapons, why were ALL men armed during that time period?
> 
> 
> 
> not at all; that is only the red herring argument of the clueless and the Causeless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, considering that you cannot support your argument with any kind of documentation and considering the fact that free men did in fact carry arms before, during and after the constitution and BOR were written and created, it is quite obvious which one of us is clueless and it certainly is not me.
Click to expand...

irrelevant; the Intent and Purpose supports no such contention.  the terms are collective not Individual should we need to quibble that point in legal venues.


----------



## danielpalos

hunarcy said:


> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.
> 
> What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You start from a false premise.  The militia is not an issue.
> 
> It's the right of the PEOPLE not the right of the militia.
Click to expand...

dear, not just Any militia (of the People) is enumerated, but well regulated militias of the People are specifically enumerated.


----------



## danielpalos

hunarcy said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know, trying to get a straight answer out of daniel is like . . . . I don't even know what.  Something very difficult.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No surprise.  The creepy way that he continues to address other males as “dear”, in such a manner as to suggest a sexual interest, would seem to indicate that he is anything but “straight”, and therefore, that a “straight” answer is not ever to be expected from him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm going to get an answer that makes sense if it kills me!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He clearly is willing to lie to continue the debate, so you may not ever get an answer that makes sense.
Click to expand...

not me; i resort to the fewest fallacies by custom and habit until it is indistinguishable from a moral; unlike those of the opposing view in this forum in the public domain.


----------



## Freiheit

hunarcy said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know, trying to get a straight answer out of daniel is like . . . . I don't even know what.  Something very difficult.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No surprise.  The creepy way that he continues to address other males as “dear”, in such a manner as to suggest a sexual interest, would seem to indicate that he is anything but “straight”, and therefore, that a “straight” answer is not ever to be expected from him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm going to get an answer that makes sense if it kills me!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He clearly is willing to lie to continue the debate, so you may not ever get an answer that makes sense.
Click to expand...

No not lie.  He/she/it brings up


hunarcy said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know, trying to get a straight answer out of daniel is like . . . . I don't even know what.  Something very difficult.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No surprise.  The creepy way that he continues to address other males as “dear”, in such a manner as to suggest a sexual interest, would seem to indicate that he is anything but “straight”, and therefore, that a “straight” answer is not ever to be expected from him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm going to get an answer that makes sense if it kills me!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He clearly is willing to lie to continue the debate, so you may not ever get an answer that makes sense.
Click to expand...

Not lie necessarily he/she/it brings up preposterous subjects to deflect, confuse, confound and change the subject.
He/she/it rarely has anything worthwhile to say and seems to delight in irritating everyone he/she/it can.


----------



## danielpalos

still nothing but fallacy for your Cause, shills?


----------



## M14 Shooter

Freiheit said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know, trying to get a straight answer out of daniel is like . . . . I don't even know what.  Something very difficult.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No surprise.  The creepy way that he continues to address other males as “dear”, in such a manner as to suggest a sexual interest, would seem to indicate that he is anything but “straight”, and therefore, that a “straight” answer is not ever to be expected from him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm going to get an answer that makes sense if it kills me!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He clearly is willing to lie to continue the debate, so you may not ever get an answer that makes sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No not lie.  He/she/it brings up
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know, trying to get a straight answer out of daniel is like . . . . I don't even know what.  Something very difficult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No surprise.  The creepy way that he continues to address other males as “dear”, in such a manner as to suggest a sexual interest, would seem to indicate that he is anything but “straight”, and therefore, that a “straight” answer is not ever to be expected from him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm going to get an answer that makes sense if it kills me!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He clearly is willing to lie to continue the debate, so you may not ever get an answer that makes sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not lie necessarily he/she/it brings up preposterous subjects to deflect, confuse, confound and change the subject.
> He/she/it rarely has anything worthwhile to say and seems to delight in irritating everyone he/she/it can.
Click to expand...

It's amazing how quickly and effectively the ignore function takes care of that.


----------



## hunarcy

danielpalos said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know, trying to get a straight answer out of daniel is like . . . . I don't even know what.  Something very difficult.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No surprise.  The creepy way that he continues to address other males as “dear”, in such a manner as to suggest a sexual interest, would seem to indicate that he is anything but “straight”, and therefore, that a “straight” answer is not ever to be expected from him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm going to get an answer that makes sense if it kills me!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He clearly is willing to lie to continue the debate, so you may not ever get an answer that makes sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not me; i resort to the fewest fallacies by custom and habit until it is indistinguishable from a moral; unlike those of the opposing view in this forum in the public domain.
Click to expand...


You lie.  That's all I need to know to realize you are a waste of time.


----------



## hunarcy

danielpalos said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.
> 
> What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You start from a false premise.  The militia is not an issue.
> 
> It's the right of the PEOPLE not the right of the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, not just Any militia (of the People) is enumerated, but well regulated militias of the People are specifically enumerated.
Click to expand...


"the right of the People", not just the right of the people in well regulated militia.  Repeating your lie does not make it true.


----------



## danielpalos

hunarcy said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know, trying to get a straight answer out of daniel is like . . . . I don't even know what.  Something very difficult.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No surprise.  The creepy way that he continues to address other males as “dear”, in such a manner as to suggest a sexual interest, would seem to indicate that he is anything but “straight”, and therefore, that a “straight” answer is not ever to be expected from him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm going to get an answer that makes sense if it kills me!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He clearly is willing to lie to continue the debate, so you may not ever get an answer that makes sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not me; i resort to the fewest fallacies by custom and habit until it is indistinguishable from a moral; unlike those of the opposing view in this forum in the public domain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You lie.  That's all I need to know to realize you are a waste of time.
Click to expand...

dear, only the clueless, the Causeless, and the right have to lie.  

why not acquire and possess a clue and a Cause.  what is the militia of the United States?


----------



## danielpalos

hunarcy said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.
> 
> What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You start from a false premise.  The militia is not an issue.
> 
> It's the right of the PEOPLE not the right of the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, not just Any militia (of the People) is enumerated, but well regulated militias of the People are specifically enumerated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "the right of the People", not just the right of the people in well regulated militia.  Repeating your lie does not make it true.
Click to expand...

dear, simply appealing to ignorance of what the militia of the United States is, is just, so special.


----------



## hunarcy

danielpalos said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.
> 
> What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You start from a false premise.  The militia is not an issue.
> 
> It's the right of the PEOPLE not the right of the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, not just Any militia (of the People) is enumerated, but well regulated militias of the People are specifically enumerated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "the right of the People", not just the right of the people in well regulated militia.  Repeating your lie does not make it true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, simply appealing to ignorance of what the militia of the United States is, is just, so special.
Click to expand...


And reverting to such a statement because you can't win on the facts and your lies are being exposed is just so juvenile.  You may go, you don't even have the redeeming quality of being clever.


----------



## hunarcy

danielpalos said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> No surprise.  The creepy way that he continues to address other males as “dear”, in such a manner as to suggest a sexual interest, would seem to indicate that he is anything but “straight”, and therefore, that a “straight” answer is not ever to be expected from him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to get an answer that makes sense if it kills me!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He clearly is willing to lie to continue the debate, so you may not ever get an answer that makes sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not me; i resort to the fewest fallacies by custom and habit until it is indistinguishable from a moral; unlike those of the opposing view in this forum in the public domain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You lie.  That's all I need to know to realize you are a waste of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, only the clueless, the Causeless, and the right have to lie.
Click to expand...


A perfect summation of your position.


----------



## danielpalos

hunarcy said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.
> 
> What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You start from a false premise.  The militia is not an issue.
> 
> It's the right of the PEOPLE not the right of the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, not just Any militia (of the People) is enumerated, but well regulated militias of the People are specifically enumerated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "the right of the People", not just the right of the people in well regulated militia.  Repeating your lie does not make it true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, simply appealing to ignorance of what the militia of the United States is, is just, so special.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And reverting to such a statement because you can't win on the facts and your lies are being exposed is just so juvenile.  You may go, you don't even have the redeeming quality of being clever.
Click to expand...

dear, only those of your point of view appeal to ignorance of 10USC311.


----------



## danielpalos

hunarcy said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to get an answer that makes sense if it kills me!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He clearly is willing to lie to continue the debate, so you may not ever get an answer that makes sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not me; i resort to the fewest fallacies by custom and habit until it is indistinguishable from a moral; unlike those of the opposing view in this forum in the public domain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You lie.  That's all I need to know to realize you are a waste of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, only the clueless, the Causeless, and the right have to lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A perfect summation of your position.
Click to expand...

i resort to the fewest fallacies to prove it, not just talk about it.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

ChrisL said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know, trying to get a straight answer out of daniel is like . . . . I don't even know what.  Something very difficult.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No surprise.  The creepy way that he continues to address other males as “dear”, in such a manner as to suggest a sexual interest, would seem to indicate that he is anything but “straight”, and therefore, that a “straight” answer is not ever to be expected from him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm going to get an answer that makes sense if it kills me!
Click to expand...


  You can't get blood from a turnip.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

danielpalos said:


> from where?  posse comitatus is common law; not, the militia of a State or the Union.



  Why should any rational person care what a pussy communist thinks?


----------



## danielpalos

Bob Blaylock said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> from where?  posse comitatus is common law; not, the militia of a State or the Union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should any rational person care what a pussy communist thinks?
Click to expand...

still nothing but fallacy?  having a Good argument require too much bravery.


----------



## ChrisL

danielpalos said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> from where?  posse comitatus is common law; not, the militia of a State or the Union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should any rational person care what a pussy communist thinks?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> still nothing but fallacy?  having a Good argument require too much bravery.
Click to expand...


You still have not posted anything to back your claims.  The federalist papers say you are wrong, the fact that men were armed during the period before, during and after the creation of the Constitution/BOR proves you wrong.


----------



## danielpalos

ChrisL said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> from where?  posse comitatus is common law; not, the militia of a State or the Union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should any rational person care what a pussy communist thinks?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> still nothing but fallacy?  having a Good argument require too much bravery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still have not posted anything to back your claims.  The federalist papers say you are wrong, the fact that men were armed during the period before, during and after the creation of the Constitution/BOR proves you wrong.
Click to expand...

dear, i don't need to cite anything other than the first clause of our Second Article of Amendment.  it really is that simple.


----------



## ChrisL

danielpalos said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> from where?  posse comitatus is common law; not, the militia of a State or the Union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should any rational person care what a pussy communist thinks?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> still nothing but fallacy?  having a Good argument require too much bravery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still have not posted anything to back your claims.  The federalist papers say you are wrong, the fact that men were armed during the period before, during and after the creation of the Constitution/BOR proves you wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, i don't need to cite anything other than the first clause of our Second Article of Amendment.  it really is that simple.
Click to expand...


Obviously you don't understand the second amendment at all, especially considering that all free men were armed at the time the second amendment was written.  Isn't that right?


----------



## ChrisL

danielpalos said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> from where?  posse comitatus is common law; not, the militia of a State or the Union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should any rational person care what a pussy communist thinks?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> still nothing but fallacy?  having a Good argument require too much bravery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still have not posted anything to back your claims.  The federalist papers say you are wrong, the fact that men were armed during the period before, during and after the creation of the Constitution/BOR proves you wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, i don't need to cite anything other than the first clause of our Second Article of Amendment.  it really is that simple.
Click to expand...


History and facts prove your sorry pathetic old stinking mentally retarded arse wrong!


----------



## danielpalos

ChrisL said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> from where?  posse comitatus is common law; not, the militia of a State or the Union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should any rational person care what a pussy communist thinks?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> still nothing but fallacy?  having a Good argument require too much bravery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still have not posted anything to back your claims.  The federalist papers say you are wrong, the fact that men were armed during the period before, during and after the creation of the Constitution/BOR proves you wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, i don't need to cite anything other than the first clause of our Second Article of Amendment.  it really is that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously you don't understand the second amendment at all, especially considering that all free men were armed at the time the second amendment was written.  Isn't that right?
Click to expand...

no dear; hearsay and soothsay is not admissible as evidence;  there is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause of our Second Article of Amendment.


----------



## danielpalos

ChrisL said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> from where?  posse comitatus is common law; not, the militia of a State or the Union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should any rational person care what a pussy communist thinks?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> still nothing but fallacy?  having a Good argument require too much bravery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still have not posted anything to back your claims.  The federalist papers say you are wrong, the fact that men were armed during the period before, during and after the creation of the Constitution/BOR proves you wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, i don't need to cite anything other than the first clause of our Second Article of Amendment.  it really is that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> History and facts prove your sorry pathetic old stinking mentally retarded arse wrong!
Click to expand...

sorry dear; you have nothing but fallacy to work with, just like _all_ of the other ones.


----------



## ChrisL

danielpalos said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should any rational person care what a pussy communist thinks?
> 
> 
> 
> still nothing but fallacy?  having a Good argument require too much bravery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still have not posted anything to back your claims.  The federalist papers say you are wrong, the fact that men were armed during the period before, during and after the creation of the Constitution/BOR proves you wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, i don't need to cite anything other than the first clause of our Second Article of Amendment.  it really is that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously you don't understand the second amendment at all, especially considering that all free men were armed at the time the second amendment was written.  Isn't that right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no dear; hearsay and soothsay is not admissible as evidence;  there is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause of our Second Article of Amendment.
Click to expand...


Again, it is not hearsay.  It is history.  Read a book and get educated about the subject instead of just posting the same old posts over and over again.


----------



## ChrisL

danielpalos said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should any rational person care what a pussy communist thinks?
> 
> 
> 
> still nothing but fallacy?  having a Good argument require too much bravery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still have not posted anything to back your claims.  The federalist papers say you are wrong, the fact that men were armed during the period before, during and after the creation of the Constitution/BOR proves you wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, i don't need to cite anything other than the first clause of our Second Article of Amendment.  it really is that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> History and facts prove your sorry pathetic old stinking mentally retarded arse wrong!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sorry dear; you have nothing but fallacy to work with, just like _all_ of the other ones.
Click to expand...


Stop calling me dear, you weird little troll.


----------



## danielpalos

ChrisL said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> still nothing but fallacy?  having a Good argument require too much bravery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You still have not posted anything to back your claims.  The federalist papers say you are wrong, the fact that men were armed during the period before, during and after the creation of the Constitution/BOR proves you wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, i don't need to cite anything other than the first clause of our Second Article of Amendment.  it really is that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously you don't understand the second amendment at all, especially considering that all free men were armed at the time the second amendment was written.  Isn't that right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no dear; hearsay and soothsay is not admissible as evidence;  there is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause of our Second Article of Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, it is not hearsay.  It is history.  Read a book and get educated about the subject instead of just posting the same old posts over and over again.
Click to expand...

yes, dear; it is nothing but hearsay and soothsay simple because their is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause.


----------



## danielpalos

ChrisL said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> still nothing but fallacy?  having a Good argument require too much bravery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You still have not posted anything to back your claims.  The federalist papers say you are wrong, the fact that men were armed during the period before, during and after the creation of the Constitution/BOR proves you wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, i don't need to cite anything other than the first clause of our Second Article of Amendment.  it really is that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> History and facts prove your sorry pathetic old stinking mentally retarded arse wrong!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sorry dear; you have nothing but fallacy to work with, just like _all_ of the other ones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop calling me dear, you weird little troll.
Click to expand...

i would dear, but you are soo special with nothing but fallacy at your disposal.


----------



## ChrisL

danielpalos said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You still have not posted anything to back your claims.  The federalist papers say you are wrong, the fact that men were armed during the period before, during and after the creation of the Constitution/BOR proves you wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> dear, i don't need to cite anything other than the first clause of our Second Article of Amendment.  it really is that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously you don't understand the second amendment at all, especially considering that all free men were armed at the time the second amendment was written.  Isn't that right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no dear; hearsay and soothsay is not admissible as evidence;  there is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause of our Second Article of Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, it is not hearsay.  It is history.  Read a book and get educated about the subject instead of just posting the same old posts over and over again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, dear; it is nothing but hearsay and soothsay simple because their is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause.
Click to expand...


You are the one who is ignorant.  Shall I post the link to the federalist papers again?


----------



## turtledude

ChrisL said:


> Stop calling me dear, you weird little troll.



you have a bot getting hard over you

better get some WD-40 and keep the bot happy


----------



## ChrisL

turtledude said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop calling me dear, you weird little troll.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you have a bot getting hard over you
> 
> better get some WD-40 and keep the bot happy
Click to expand...


Why would I want to do that?


----------



## turtledude

keeps the little bot from getting rusty after jizzing all over himself


----------



## ChrisL

turtledude said:


> keeps the little bot from getting rusty after jizzing all over himself


----------



## danielpalos

ChrisL said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> dear, i don't need to cite anything other than the first clause of our Second Article of Amendment.  it really is that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously you don't understand the second amendment at all, especially considering that all free men were armed at the time the second amendment was written.  Isn't that right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no dear; hearsay and soothsay is not admissible as evidence;  there is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause of our Second Article of Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, it is not hearsay.  It is history.  Read a book and get educated about the subject instead of just posting the same old posts over and over again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, dear; it is nothing but hearsay and soothsay simple because their is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one who is ignorant.  Shall I post the link to the federalist papers again?
Click to expand...

dear; you missed the point.  you are welcome to cite the federalist papers regarding the militia.


----------



## ChrisL

danielpalos said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously you don't understand the second amendment at all, especially considering that all free men were armed at the time the second amendment was written.  Isn't that right?
> 
> 
> 
> no dear; hearsay and soothsay is not admissible as evidence;  there is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause of our Second Article of Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, it is not hearsay.  It is history.  Read a book and get educated about the subject instead of just posting the same old posts over and over again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, dear; it is nothing but hearsay and soothsay simple because their is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one who is ignorant.  Shall I post the link to the federalist papers again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear; you missed the point.  you are welcome to cite the federalist papers regarding the militia.
Click to expand...


I've already done that.  Try to follow along.  The "militia" is made up of all free men/citizens of the United States, to be ready with their arms at a moment's notice.


----------



## ChrisL

History, daniel, learn the history of our country before you spout off such nonsense!!!  

In 1774, General Thomas Gage, the new Governor of Massachusetts, tried to enforce the Intolerable Acts, which were designed to remove power from the towns. Samuel Adams pressed for County Conventions to strengthen the revolutionary resistance. Gage tried to seat his own court in Worcester, but the townspeople blocked the court from sitting. Two thousand militiamen marched to intimidate the judges and get them to leave. This was the first time the militia was used by the people to block the king's representatives from acting on royal orders and against popular opinion. Gage responded by preparing to march to collect munitions from the provincials. For 50 miles around Boston, militiamen were marching in response. By noon the next day, almost 4000 people were on the common in Cambridge. The provincials got the judges to resign and leave. Gage backed off from trying to seat a court in Worcester.


----------



## ChrisL

Overmountain Men - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## ChrisL

So, given the above two (among MANY) historical accounts of individuals taking up arms to fight off the British "government" which was in power at the time, are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that the founding fathers wanted a "federally" controlled militia???


----------



## danielpalos

ChrisL said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> no dear; hearsay and soothsay is not admissible as evidence;  there is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause of our Second Article of Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, it is not hearsay.  It is history.  Read a book and get educated about the subject instead of just posting the same old posts over and over again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, dear; it is nothing but hearsay and soothsay simple because their is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one who is ignorant.  Shall I post the link to the federalist papers again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear; you missed the point.  you are welcome to cite the federalist papers regarding the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've already done that.  Try to follow along.  The "militia" is made up of all free men/citizens of the United States, to be ready with their arms at a moment's notice.
Click to expand...

yes; thus, not all of the militia of the United States is well regulated; dear.  Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed.


----------



## danielpalos

ChrisL said:


> History, daniel, learn the history of our country before you spout off such nonsense!!!
> 
> In 1774, General Thomas Gage, the new Governor of Massachusetts, tried to enforce the Intolerable Acts, which were designed to remove power from the towns. Samuel Adams pressed for County Conventions to strengthen the revolutionary resistance. Gage tried to seat his own court in Worcester, but the townspeople blocked the court from sitting. Two thousand militiamen marched to intimidate the judges and get them to leave. This was the first time the militia was used by the people to block the king's representatives from acting on royal orders and against popular opinion. Gage responded by preparing to march to collect munitions from the provincials. For 50 miles around Boston, militiamen were marching in response. By noon the next day, almost 4000 people were on the common in Cambridge. The provincials got the judges to resign and leave. Gage backed off from trying to seat a court in Worcester.


dear; hearsay and soothsay is just that: there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.


----------



## danielpalos

ChrisL said:


> So, given the above two (among MANY) historical accounts of individuals taking up arms to fight off the British "government" which was in power at the time, are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that the founding fathers wanted a "federally" controlled militia???


dear; the militia of the United States is a federal obligation.


----------



## ChrisL

danielpalos said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, it is not hearsay.  It is history.  Read a book and get educated about the subject instead of just posting the same old posts over and over again.
> 
> 
> 
> yes, dear; it is nothing but hearsay and soothsay simple because their is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one who is ignorant.  Shall I post the link to the federalist papers again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear; you missed the point.  you are welcome to cite the federalist papers regarding the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've already done that.  Try to follow along.  The "militia" is made up of all free men/citizens of the United States, to be ready with their arms at a moment's notice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes; thus, not all of the militia of the United States is well regulated; dear.  Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed.
Click to expand...


Your understanding of this country and why we have rights and why we do things the way we do is so . . . wrong, I doubt that you are a citizen of the United States.  You have absolutely no knowledge of how our country was even founded!!  Go back to the playpen, pathetic little troll.


----------



## danielpalos

ChrisL said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes, dear; it is nothing but hearsay and soothsay simple because their is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one who is ignorant.  Shall I post the link to the federalist papers again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear; you missed the point.  you are welcome to cite the federalist papers regarding the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've already done that.  Try to follow along.  The "militia" is made up of all free men/citizens of the United States, to be ready with their arms at a moment's notice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes; thus, not all of the militia of the United States is well regulated; dear.  Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your understanding of this country and why we have rights and why we do things the way we do is so . . . wrong, I doubt that you are a citizen of the United States.  You have absolutely no knowledge of how our country was even founded!!  Go back to the playpen, pathetic little troll.
Click to expand...

why not acquire and possess a clue and a Cause, instead of just being a shill.


----------



## turtledude

danielpalos said:


> yes; thus, not all of the militia of the United States is well regulated; dear.  Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed.



more of the brain dead bot 


ChrisL said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> no dear; hearsay and soothsay is not admissible as evidence;  there is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause of our Second Article of Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, it is not hearsay.  It is history.  Read a book and get educated about the subject instead of just posting the same old posts over and over again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, dear; it is nothing but hearsay and soothsay simple because their is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one who is ignorant.  Shall I post the link to the federalist papers again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear; you missed the point.  you are welcome to cite the federalist papers regarding the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've already done that.  Try to follow along.  The "militia" is made up of all free men/citizens of the United States, to be ready with their arms at a moment's notice.
Click to expand...



DON'T FEED THE BOT


----------



## ChrisL

turtledude said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes; thus, not all of the militia of the United States is well regulated; dear.  Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> more of the brain dead bot
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, it is not hearsay.  It is history.  Read a book and get educated about the subject instead of just posting the same old posts over and over again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, dear; it is nothing but hearsay and soothsay simple because their is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one who is ignorant.  Shall I post the link to the federalist papers again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear; you missed the point.  you are welcome to cite the federalist papers regarding the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've already done that.  Try to follow along.  The "militia" is made up of all free men/citizens of the United States, to be ready with their arms at a moment's notice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> DON'T FEED THE BOT
Click to expand...


He's not smart enough to be a bot.


----------



## danielpalos

Still nothing but fallacy, drs. clueless and Causeless?  

Rights in private property, including the class called Arms, is secured in State Constitutions.  Our Second Amendment clearly deals with our civic obligation as the militia of the United States, well regulated or not.


----------



## turtledude

ChrisL said:


> He's not smart enough to be a bot.



He's a gaping asshole seeking attention with his brain dead attempt to pretend he knows something about constitutional law


----------



## ChrisL

danielpalos said:


> Still nothing but fallacy, drs. clueless and Causeless?
> 
> Rights in private property, including the class called Arms, is secured in State Constitutions.  Our Second Amendment clearly deals with our civic obligation as the militia of the United States, well regulated or not.



Provide some documentation.  And again, you are wrong according to the Justices of the Supreme Court, daniel!


----------



## turtledude

ChrisL said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still nothing but fallacy, drs. clueless and Causeless?
> 
> Rights in private property, including the class called Arms, is secured in State Constitutions.  Our Second Amendment clearly deals with our civic obligation as the militia of the United States, well regulated or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Provide some documentation.  And again, you are wrong according to the Justices of the Supreme Court, daniel!
Click to expand...


bot-a-tard just makes crap up


----------



## danielpalos

ChrisL said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still nothing but fallacy, drs. clueless and Causeless?
> 
> Rights in private property, including the class called Arms, is secured in State Constitutions.  Our Second Amendment clearly deals with our civic obligation as the militia of the United States, well regulated or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Provide some documentation.  And again, you are wrong according to the Justices of the Supreme Court, daniel!
Click to expand...

dear, there is no appeal to ignorance of the law; it just hasn't come up due to equality between work and pay issues.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

turtledude said:


> He's a gaping asshole seeking attention with his brain dead attempt to pretend he knows something about constitutional law



  Reminds me a bit of a certain Gay Marxist that infests another site of which we are both familiar.


----------



## oldsoul

Good to see that people have FINALLY realized that arguing with an obvious Marxist, that has been Cali-foricated, is an excercise in futility. Issues based discussions with liberals is, at best, like trying to explain quantum physics to a toddler... Even if you could, what's the point? Neither will ever use the info for anything useful.


----------



## danielpalos

only shills say that; and, don't let me catch y'all whining in the affirmative action threads.


----------



## oldsoul

Name-calling is a hallmark of someone who has nothing of value to base their arguement on. As to Affirmative Action...I can't see how it is benificial to make decisions, of any kind, based, in any way, on a persons Federally protected "minority" status. I prefer to make desisions based on the merits of the various options, regardless of who's ego I may, or may not, bruise. If you, or your idea, is not the best option, you should not be selected. Period. Unless, of course you are in favor of collapsing our entire society, in which case, bugger-off, and leave MY country alone.


----------



## danielpalos

projecting much?  y'all don't have any valid arguments.


----------



## turtledude

Bob Blaylock said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's a gaping asshole seeking attention with his brain dead attempt to pretend he knows something about constitutional law
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reminds me a bit of a certain Gay Marxist that infests another site of which we are both familiar.
Click to expand...


which one, that narrows it down to about 10


----------



## Cecilie1200

ChrisL said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> no dear, it is not about Individual rights, but about the security of a free State and what is necessary to achieve that End.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, I as well as others have indeed posted the Federalist papers here on this very thread, I believe.  Did you just ignore them so that you can continue on with your nonsensical rants?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, the federalist papers support my contention, not yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can quote and link to sections that support my statements.  Can you?
> 
> The Founding Fathers on the Second Amendment
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves… and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms… The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle.” – _Letters From the Federal Farmer to the Republican_, Letter XVIII, January 25, 1788
> 
> “(W)hereas, 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 nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.” – _Federal Farmer_, Anti-Federalist Letter, No.18, _The Pennsylvania Gazette_, February 20, 1788
> 
> “No free government was ever founded, or ever preserved its liberty, without uniting the characters of the citizen and soldier in those destined for the defense of the state…such area well-regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen.” – Richard Henry Lee, State Gazette (Charleston), September 8, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, all of those authors support my contention that there are no Individual rights with the terms, militia and the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think you know how to read or comprehend what you are reading.  Clearly, the intention is that every able-bodied American would be a part of the "militia" and that men have the right to bear arms for self defense.  Shall I bold it for you?  Maybe that would lessen your confusion and make it more simple for you to understand what it is you are reading?
> 
> 
> *such area well-regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen.*” – Richard Henry Lee, State Gazette (Charleston), September 8, 1788
Click to expand...


For some reason, it's very hard for certain people to understand that the Founding Fathers, who took on the British with an army made up of everyday citizens, would see the people themselves as a very necessary last line of defense that must be preserved.


----------



## danielpalos

Cecilie1200 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, I as well as others have indeed posted the Federalist papers here on this very thread, I believe.  Did you just ignore them so that you can continue on with your nonsensical rants?
> 
> 
> 
> dear, the federalist papers support my contention, not yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can quote and link to sections that support my statements.  Can you?
> 
> The Founding Fathers on the Second Amendment
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves… and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms… The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle.” – _Letters From the Federal Farmer to the Republican_, Letter XVIII, January 25, 1788
> 
> “(W)hereas, 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 nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.” – _Federal Farmer_, Anti-Federalist Letter, No.18, _The Pennsylvania Gazette_, February 20, 1788
> 
> “No free government was ever founded, or ever preserved its liberty, without uniting the characters of the citizen and soldier in those destined for the defense of the state…such area well-regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen.” – Richard Henry Lee, State Gazette (Charleston), September 8, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, all of those authors support my contention that there are no Individual rights with the terms, militia and the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think you know how to read or comprehend what you are reading.  Clearly, the intention is that every able-bodied American would be a part of the "militia" and that men have the right to bear arms for self defense.  Shall I bold it for you?  Maybe that would lessen your confusion and make it more simple for you to understand what it is you are reading?
> 
> 
> *such area well-regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen.*” – Richard Henry Lee, State Gazette (Charleston), September 8, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For some reason, it's very hard for certain people to understand that the Founding Fathers, who took on the British with an army made up of everyday citizens, would see the people themselves as a very necessary last line of defense that must be preserved.
Click to expand...

dear, it was well regulated militias, not merely gun lovers.


----------



## ChrisL

Cecilie1200 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, I as well as others have indeed posted the Federalist papers here on this very thread, I believe.  Did you just ignore them so that you can continue on with your nonsensical rants?
> 
> 
> 
> dear, the federalist papers support my contention, not yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can quote and link to sections that support my statements.  Can you?
> 
> The Founding Fathers on the Second Amendment
> 
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves… and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms… The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle.” – _Letters From the Federal Farmer to the Republican_, Letter XVIII, January 25, 1788
> 
> “(W)hereas, 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 nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.” – _Federal Farmer_, Anti-Federalist Letter, No.18, _The Pennsylvania Gazette_, February 20, 1788
> 
> “No free government was ever founded, or ever preserved its liberty, without uniting the characters of the citizen and soldier in those destined for the defense of the state…such area well-regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen.” – Richard Henry Lee, State Gazette (Charleston), September 8, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, all of those authors support my contention that there are no Individual rights with the terms, militia and the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think you know how to read or comprehend what you are reading.  Clearly, the intention is that every able-bodied American would be a part of the "militia" and that men have the right to bear arms for self defense.  Shall I bold it for you?  Maybe that would lessen your confusion and make it more simple for you to understand what it is you are reading?
> 
> 
> *such area well-regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen.*” – Richard Henry Lee, State Gazette (Charleston), September 8, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For some reason, it's very hard for certain people to understand that the Founding Fathers, who took on the British with an army made up of everyday citizens, would see the people themselves as a very necessary last line of defense that must be preserved.
Click to expand...


Oops.  I meant to give you a thank you but I pressed the funny button by accident.  Fixed it!


----------



## ChrisL

danielpalos said:


> projecting much?  y'all don't have any valid arguments.



No daniel, we have all provided many links to reputable sources to back our side of the argument.  All you have done is repeat the same nonsense that you always do.  You must have been schooled on this a million times, but still you refuse to learn.  Sad for you is all it is that you can't learn anything new.


----------



## turtledude

ChrisL said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> projecting much?  y'all don't have any valid arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No daniel, we have all provided many links to reputable sources to back our side of the argument.  All you have done is repeat the same nonsense that you always do.  You must have been schooled on this a million times, but still you refuse to learn.  Sad for you is all it is that you can't learn anything new.
Click to expand...

 DanielBottrollus is some MIT or Cal Tech's artificial intelligence project

earned the student about a C-


----------



## Bob Blaylock

turtledude said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's a gaping asshole seeking attention with his brain dead attempt to pretend he knows something about constitutional law
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reminds me a bit of a certain Gay Marxist that infests another site of which we are both familiar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> which one, that narrows it down to about 10
Click to expand...


  Try saying “Gay Marxist” out loud a few times.  Some part of me wants to think that in some contexts, in Spanish, the “G” has more of an “H” sound.  Try saying it that way.  I don't think it'll take long for you to figure out which Gay Marxist I have in mind.


----------



## danielpalos

ChrisL said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> projecting much?  y'all don't have any valid arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No daniel, we have all provided many links to reputable sources to back our side of the argument.  All you have done is repeat the same nonsense that you always do.  You must have been schooled on this a million times, but still you refuse to learn.  Sad for you is all it is that you can't learn anything new.
Click to expand...

dear, hearsay and soothsay is just that; there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.


----------



## Sally Vater

I will only accept the constitution..."shall not be infringed".


----------



## danielpalos

Sally Vater said:


> I will only accept the constitution..."shall not be infringed".


yes; only that which is necessary to the security of a free State shall not be Infringed.


----------



## Cecilie1200

I see no reason to compromise at all.  To leftists, "compromise" always means "surrender and give us what we want".  I'm opposed to that, anyway, and in this case, we have no reason to give them anything at all.  Certainly, they have nothing to give us in return, nor would they give us anything even if they did.


----------



## danielpalos

if only, gun lovers would love their republic as much as they claim to love their guns.


----------



## turtledude

Cecilie1200 said:


> I see no reason to compromise at all.  To leftists, "compromise" always means "surrender and give us what we want".  I'm opposed to that, anyway, and in this case, we have no reason to give them anything at all.  Certainly, they have nothing to give us in return, nor would they give us anything even if they did.


real compromise as intended by the founders

leave free citizens alone and they won't shoot you


----------



## Cecilie1200

turtledude said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see no reason to compromise at all.  To leftists, "compromise" always means "surrender and give us what we want".  I'm opposed to that, anyway, and in this case, we have no reason to give them anything at all.  Certainly, they have nothing to give us in return, nor would they give us anything even if they did.
> 
> 
> 
> real compromise as intended by the founders
> 
> leave free citizens alone and they won't shoot you
Click to expand...


Seems like a good deal to me.


----------



## turtledude

Cecilie1200 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see no reason to compromise at all.  To leftists, "compromise" always means "surrender and give us what we want".  I'm opposed to that, anyway, and in this case, we have no reason to give them anything at all.  Certainly, they have nothing to give us in return, nor would they give us anything even if they did.
> 
> 
> 
> real compromise as intended by the founders
> 
> leave free citizens alone and they won't shoot you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems like a good deal to me.
Click to expand...



an excellent trade!


----------



## ChrisL

Our rights are not something that we should ever "compromise" on.  That would be stupid.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965

Absolutely not, but just for arguments sake would people like me not have to join your state defence force?
I'm a US Army Veteran and I have weapons training. I'm also curious as to how your suggestion would effect someone like a poor single mother who just wants to defend her family and home in a crime-ridden neighbourhood?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.
> 
> What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?



Well, I can see the benefit to YOU, since this is basically a plan where we concede you everything you could ever possibly want, short of simply confiscating all firearms.

Question is, what possible reason could WE have for agreeing to this crap?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Correll said:


> NOpe.
> 
> Any attempt to raise the cost of gun ownership is a restriction on a important Right.



yes, a right to defend ourselves against common criminals, ISIS, and, most importantly, liberal govt!!

* 
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government" 

-- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334*


----------



## turtledude

Here is the compromise the founders believed in

DON'T TRY TO CONFISCATE OR BAN honest citizens firearms and THEY WON'T SHOOT YOU


----------



## emilynghiem

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.
> 
> What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?



Hi Pedro de San Patricio
I would suggest keeping the wording as is.
But agreeing to interpret "right of the people" as right of Law-abiding Citizens.
To teach all citizens that nobody has the right to use arms to break the law,
it is only for defending laws. That should be taught as the spirit of the contract.

Then leave it to the people to work it out with govt (local, city state county federal etc.)
what constitutes law abiding and how to go about screening and training citizens with firearms. Example: see Welcome to The Armed Citizen Project | Armed Citizen Project
for policies I would teach all citizens as a minimum requirement for
legal competence: ethics-commission.net I would teach citizens that
if we want equal civil rights and protections, we have to enforce these same standards.

On that point I would suggest that citizens take the same training and Constitutional oath
as police and military officers are required to, including screening. If our police and veterans
are expected to go through extensive screening and training, before being authorized to use deadly force,
it makes sense to offer the same to citizens.

But that does not mean citizens have to join the military or police.
You can be licensed to teach but don't have to become a teacher in public schools to teach.

I would suggest that citizens work with local police and teachers unions,
and agree on what policies to use to make sure the training to use arms
is for defense of the law, and this would deter and prevent arms from being used to break laws.
I would recommend using public school facilities to train all citizens in the same laws
and procedures that police are expected to enforce.

Again, this doesn't mean that citizens can or should be required to join the armed forces,
but the training should be standard. So that all citizens agree to follow due process
and not to act outside legal authority when using arms for defense of the law.


----------



## Centinel

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.
> 
> What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?



Which of congress' powers (as enumerated in Art I, section 8) would permit it to enact such legislation?


----------



## miketx

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.
> 
> What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?



Gun banner.


----------



## emilynghiem

Centinel said:


> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.
> 
> What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which of congress' powers (as enumerated in Art I, section 8) would permit it to enact such legislation?
Click to expand...


CORRECTED

Dear Centinel The same way the Amendment on prohibition was later repealed,
[ratification by the States] is needed to amend or revise Constitutional Amendments.

In this case I would more recommend an agreement on interpreting the Amendment.
If this is agreed upon and put into writing, it can be added as a clarifying section
(such as sections 1-5 under Amendment 14).

Since this touches on a political belief about the "right to bear arms"
which is held as sacred similar to the right to vote, I would recommend
a consensus on how to interpret it if anything is going to be committed to as public law.

Where there is conflict, that means the two sided beliefs are competing, and that's the whole problem.

The point is to reach an agreement how to interpret the law to satisfy both, not impose one or exclude the other.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

emilynghiem said:


> Dear Centinel The same way the Amendment on prohibition was later repealed,
> Congress can amend or revise Constitutional Amendments.



  No, Congress most certainly does not have that power.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> NOpe.
> 
> Any attempt to raise the cost of gun ownership is a restriction on a important Right.
> 
> 
> 
> If the whole point of the amendment is arming the militia, then shouldn't we be barring those incapable of entering the militia to have one? Think about the kind of person who couldn't even join a volunteer irregular military-lite.
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not happening, we have you anti gun loons by the short hairs with the 2nd as it is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not anti-gun. I'm taking the Second Amendment at its word as to its meaning. It says that we can own guns because the militia needs to have guns. What I want is to make gun owners the militia and give them the regulation and training they need to pose more of a danger to foreign and domestic enemies than to themselves and innocent bystanders.
Click to expand...

The point of the amendment is not to arm the militia

It is to preserve the right of the people to own arm so they can in the need arise organize a militia


----------



## emilynghiem

Bob Blaylock said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Centinel The same way the Amendment on prohibition was later repealed,
> Congress can amend or revise Constitutional Amendments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, Congress most certainly does not have that power.
Click to expand...


I thought States had to ratify Amendments and then Congress or the Senate had to confirm the ratification? Who confirms that enough States have ratified any Amendments or changes to Amendments? That isn't done through Congress? Sorry if I misstated what I meant.


----------



## emilynghiem

Skull Pilot said:


> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> NOpe.
> 
> Any attempt to raise the cost of gun ownership is a restriction on a important Right.
> 
> 
> 
> If the whole point of the amendment is arming the militia, then shouldn't we be barring those incapable of entering the militia to have one? Think about the kind of person who couldn't even join a volunteer irregular military-lite.
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not happening, we have you anti gun loons by the short hairs with the 2nd as it is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not anti-gun. I'm taking the Second Amendment at its word as to its meaning. It says that we can own guns because the militia needs to have guns. What I want is to make gun owners the militia and give them the regulation and training they need to pose more of a danger to foreign and domestic enemies than to themselves and innocent bystanders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The point of the amendment is not to arm the militia
> 
> It is to preserve the right of the people to own arm so they can in the need arise organize a militia
Click to expand...


At the time of the Second Amendment and similar laws, some of the states didn't even have their own militias. So it could not have meant state militias only.

I believe people have the right to both interpretations, but not to impose one at the exclusion of the other.
If you want to believe it means militias only, that's a person's right, but cannot be imposed on others who believe it means ANY person who seeks to bear arms to defend the laws, even if govt is the violator of the laws being defended.

I find the REAL issue is whether or not arms are used by someone with law abiding intent or with criminal intent.  And how do we keep the arms away from those with criminal intent while respecting due process. It isn't fair to deprive law abiding citizens of liberty because of other people's crimes.
So how do we achieve effective deterrence without harming the law abiding citizens. That's the issue.


----------



## Skull Pilot

emilynghiem said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> NOpe.
> 
> Any attempt to raise the cost of gun ownership is a restriction on a important Right.
> 
> 
> 
> If the whole point of the amendment is arming the militia, then shouldn't we be barring those incapable of entering the militia to have one? Think about the kind of person who couldn't even join a volunteer irregular military-lite.
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not happening, we have you anti gun loons by the short hairs with the 2nd as it is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not anti-gun. I'm taking the Second Amendment at its word as to its meaning. It says that we can own guns because the militia needs to have guns. What I want is to make gun owners the militia and give them the regulation and training they need to pose more of a danger to foreign and domestic enemies than to themselves and innocent bystanders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The point of the amendment is not to arm the militia
> 
> It is to preserve the right of the people to own arm so they can in the need arise organize a militia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At the time of the Second Amendment and similar laws, some of the states didn't even have their own militias. So it could not have meant state militias only.
> 
> I believe people have the right to both interpretations, but not to impose one at the exclusion of the other.
> If you want to believe it means militias only, that's a person's right, but cannot be imposed on others who believe it means ANY person who seeks to bear arms to defend the laws, even if govt is the violator of the laws being defended.
> 
> I find the REAL issue is whether or not arms are used by someone with law abiding intent or with criminal intent.  And how do we keep the arms away from those with criminal intent while respecting due process. It isn't fair to deprive law abiding citizens of liberty because of other people's crimes.
> So how do we achieve effective deterrence without harming the law abiding citizens. That's the issue.
Click to expand...


We have already put in place means to keep those most suspect of doing harm with guns from getting them

Unfortunately no one can predict the future IMO we have to discourage gun crime with draconian punishment

I have long been in favor of mandatory life sentences in federal prison for anyone committing a crime while in the possession of a firearm regardless of whether the firearm was actually used in the crime itself.


----------



## Cecilie1200

emilynghiem said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Centinel The same way the Amendment on prohibition was later repealed,
> Congress can amend or revise Constitutional Amendments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, Congress most certainly does not have that power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought States had to ratify Amendments and then Congress or the Senate had to confirm the ratification? Who confirms that enough States have ratified any Amendments or changes to Amendments? That isn't done through Congress? Sorry if I misstated what I meant.
Click to expand...


An interesting question.

Constitutional Amendment Process


----------



## Bob Blaylock

emilynghiem said:


> I find the REAL issue is whether or not arms are used by someone with law abiding intent or with criminal intent.  And how do we keep the arms away from those with criminal intent while respecting due process. It isn't fair to deprive law abiding citizens of liberty because of other people's crimes.
> So how do we achieve effective deterrence without harming the law abiding citizens. That's the issue.



  It's easy.

  When someone commits a crime, that unjustly causes harm to another person, or unjustly violates the rights of another person, you arrest that person, try him for the crime, and put him in prison for a time.  If the crime is serious enough, or if someone has demonstrated a sufficiently serious pattern of persistent criminality, you permanently remove him from free society, either by putting him to death, or else keeping him in prison for life, with no possibility of parole or other release.

  That's all there is to it.  No need, and no excuse, to violate or in any way impair the rights of those who have not committed crimes, or who have _“paid their debt to society”_ for any past crimes that they may have committed, including their Second Amndment right to keep and bear arms.

  Unfortunately, criminals are an important constituency to liberals, and to the Democratic party.  The Democratic party adopted gun control as a cause, specifically to deflect rightful criticism or being _“soft on crime”_, while, at the same time, benefitting rather than harming the criminals who were and still are an important part of their demographic base.

  Gun control is a pro-criminal policy, and the Democrats favor it because they are the pro-criminal party.


----------



## Viktor

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.
> 
> What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?


No way


----------



## Viktor

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.
> 
> What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?


A recent case interprets the 2nd amendment to allow possession by individuals for legal purposes such as self defense
District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Viktor

JoeB131 said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not happening, we have you anti gun loons by the short hairs with the 2nd as it is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Utnil the next time one of you loons shoots up a school or a church and people finally get fed up with your shit.
Click to expand...

If you think I'm gonna give up my right to self defense to make you feel safer, you are the loon, sonny.


----------



## Viktor

JoeB131 said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not happening, we have you anti gun loons by the short hairs with the 2nd as it is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Utnil the next time one of you loons shoots up a school or a church and people finally get fed up with your shit.
Click to expand...

Gun control is the theory that a 90pound woman should fistfight with rapists.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Viktor said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not happening, we have you anti gun loons by the short hairs with the 2nd as it is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Utnil the next time one of you loons shoots up a school or a church and people finally get fed up with your shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you think I'm gonna give up my right to self defense to make you feel safer, you are the loon, sonny.
Click to expand...


The loons say that after every shooting, the Second is bigger than they are


----------



## Agit8r

There is plenty of room within the present interpretation to restrict the sale of guns to exclude dangerous individuals.  The people in congress are just too busy licking the NRA's boots to bother passing any meaningful changes.


----------



## jon_berzerk

nope


----------



## Cecilie1200

Agit8r said:


> There is plenty of room within the present interpretation to restrict the sale of guns to exclude dangerous individuals.  The people in congress are just too busy licking the NRA's boots to bother passing any meaningful changes.



We already restrict the sale of guns to exclude dangerous individuals.  Either you don't know that, or you're defining "dangerous individual" a lot more broadly than convicted felons and lunatics.

As regards those two - especially the lunatics - the problem is more a lack of enforcement, not a lack of laws.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Agit8r said:


> There is plenty of room within the present interpretation to restrict the sale of guns to exclude dangerous individuals.  The people in congress are just too busy licking the NRA's boots to bother passing any meaningful changes.


More of your usual  mindless nonsense.

Persons currently prohibited by federal law from buying / possessing guns.
(1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year; 
(2) is a fugitive from justice; 
(3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)); 
(4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution; 
(5) who, being an alien— (A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or (B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(26))); 
(6) who [2] has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; 
(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship; 
(8) is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that— (A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to participate; and (B) (i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or (ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or (9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

No one disagrees with this list.


----------



## Agit8r

Cecilie1200 said:


> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is plenty of room within the present interpretation to restrict the sale of guns to exclude dangerous individuals.  The people in congress are just too busy licking the NRA's boots to bother passing any meaningful changes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We already restrict the sale of guns to exclude dangerous individuals.  Either you don't know that, or you're defining "dangerous individual" a lot more broadly than convicted felons and lunatics.
> 
> As regards those two - especially the lunatics - the problem is more a lack of enforcement, not a lack of laws.
Click to expand...


Well, pretty clearly we do not.  Most of the mass shootings of late have happened because the system failed to identify obvious lunatics.

The other couple happened because of irresponsible relatives or acquaintances providing weaponry to obvious lunatics.  And of these, only one person has been held accountable for being such an accomplice.  The system does not function because death is the hottest commodity these days.  It has been reduced to a mere market function, because a lot of Americans have no real regard for human life, and no real concept of what constitutes tyranny.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Agit8r said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is plenty of room within the present interpretation to restrict the sale of guns to exclude dangerous individuals.  The people in congress are just too busy licking the NRA's boots to bother passing any meaningful changes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We already restrict the sale of guns to exclude dangerous individuals.  Either you don't know that, or you're defining "dangerous individual" a lot more broadly than convicted felons and lunatics.
> 
> As regards those two - especially the lunatics - the problem is more a lack of enforcement, not a lack of laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, pretty clearly we do not.  Most of the mass shootings of late have happened because the system failed to identify obvious lunatics.
> 
> The other couple happened because of irresponsible relatives or acquaintances providing weaponry to obvious lunatics.  And of these, only one person has been held accountable for being such an accomplice.  The system does not function because death is the hottest commodity these days.  It has been reduced to a mere market function, because a lot of Americans have no real regard for human life, and no real concept of what constitutes tyranny.
Click to expand...


Please don't forget people mis-stating the problem in order to further a political agenda.


----------



## ChrisL

Agit8r said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is plenty of room within the present interpretation to restrict the sale of guns to exclude dangerous individuals.  The people in congress are just too busy licking the NRA's boots to bother passing any meaningful changes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We already restrict the sale of guns to exclude dangerous individuals.  Either you don't know that, or you're defining "dangerous individual" a lot more broadly than convicted felons and lunatics.
> 
> As regards those two - especially the lunatics - the problem is more a lack of enforcement, not a lack of laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, pretty clearly we do not.  Most of the mass shootings of late have happened because the system failed to identify obvious lunatics.
> 
> The other couple happened because of irresponsible relatives or acquaintances providing weaponry to obvious lunatics.  And of these, only one person has been held accountable for being such an accomplice.  The system does not function because death is the hottest commodity these days.  It has been reduced to a mere market function, because a lot of Americans have no real regard for human life, and no real concept of what constitutes tyranny.
Click to expand...


Well, unfortunately, you cannot read people's minds.  If a person does not have anything on their record that would prevent him or her from purchasing a weapon, then that person has the right to purchase the weapon.  Liberty and freedom are not without risk.  

And again, just because some irresponsible people exist, that is no reason to prohibit the rest of us from owning anything.  How many "irresponsible people" have had children drown in pools?  People with children are still allowed to have pools though, and owning a pool is NOT a constitutional right.


----------



## peach174

Agit8r said:


> There is plenty of room within the present interpretation to restrict the sale of guns to exclude dangerous individuals.  The people in congress are just too busy licking the NRA's boots to bother passing any meaningful changes.




Nope
You have the ACLU and _ Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall to thank, for them having their constitutional rights including guns._


----------



## Bob Blaylock

peach174 said:


> Nope
> You have the ACLU and _ Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall to thank, for them having their constitutional rights including guns._



  Nope.

  If credit for that belongs to any mortal men, then it belongs to the great men who founded this nation, and who wrote the Constitution and the first ten Amendments.


----------



## 320 Years of History

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.
> 
> What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?



Yes, with modifications.


----------



## Agit8r

ChrisL said:


> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is plenty of room within the present interpretation to restrict the sale of guns to exclude dangerous individuals.  The people in congress are just too busy licking the NRA's boots to bother passing any meaningful changes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We already restrict the sale of guns to exclude dangerous individuals.  Either you don't know that, or you're defining "dangerous individual" a lot more broadly than convicted felons and lunatics.
> 
> As regards those two - especially the lunatics - the problem is more a lack of enforcement, not a lack of laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, pretty clearly we do not.  Most of the mass shootings of late have happened because the system failed to identify obvious lunatics.
> 
> The other couple happened because of irresponsible relatives or acquaintances providing weaponry to obvious lunatics.  And of these, only one person has been held accountable for being such an accomplice.  The system does not function because death is the hottest commodity these days.  It has been reduced to a mere market function, because a lot of Americans have no real regard for human life, and no real concept of what constitutes tyranny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, unfortunately, you cannot read people's minds.  If a person does not have anything on their record that would prevent him or her from purchasing a weapon, then that person has the right to purchase the weapon.  Liberty and freedom are not without risk.
> 
> And again, just because some irresponsible people exist, that is no reason to prohibit the rest of us from owning anything.  How many "irresponsible people" have had children drown in pools?  People with children are still allowed to have pools though, and owning a pool is NOT a constitutional right.
Click to expand...


Who said anything about prohibiting the rest of us from owning anything?  I said that the present constitutional interpretation is not the problem.  The unwillingness to legislate within the limits of that interpretation is the problem. The political problem, that is.


----------



## Centinel

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.
> 
> What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?



When the states established their constitution, they delegated a small, enumerated set of powers to Congress. Nowhere among this list of powers is the power to interfere with the ability of the people of the several states to acquire, keep, and bear arms.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Agit8r said:


> Well, pretty clearly we do not.  Most of the mass shootings of late have happened because the system failed to identify obvious lunatics.


It isn't necessarily illegal for "obvious lunatics" to have a gun.




> The system does not function because death is the hottest commodity these days.


No.
The system does work because it is impossible to enact a law that will prevent someone from breaking another law.
That is, the failure is conceptual, not mechanical.


----------



## hunarcy

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.
> 
> What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?



The right belongs to the people, not just militia.


----------



## Bern80

This is probably the best explanation of the second amendment I've seen. Especially with regard to clarifying the distinction between people and militia. They are not the same thing. The militia is mentioned in one phrase while people in the next for a reason. If they meant for only the militia or even an unorganized 'militia' to be the only ones with guns they would have used the word militia again in the next phrase instead of people.


----------



## petro

hunarcy said:


> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.
> 
> What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The right belongs to the people, not just militia.
Click to expand...

Exactly, This is why the Anti-Federalists insisted that the Bill of Rights ie. the first 10 Amendments were God given and inalienable rights of the People. I wonder if those arguing for a compromise of the 2nd Amendment would be willing to compromise on the 1st. There are plenty of mentally unstable folks spouting ill prepared arguments in positions of power, we could start there. Congress and the POTUS come to mind.


----------



## xotoxi

God granted Americans the right to own guns.  

It was carved into the stone tablets with all the Ten Amendment that George Washington found at the base of a burning cherry tree and brought down from Mount Vernon.


----------



## 12icer

the left ALWAYS gives FALSE numbers in their rants against guns I read one post that placed the number at 38,000 that may well be TOTAL MURDERS, I have not seen a number even close to that in MANY years. Now as to reasons for the MASSIVE INCREASE in mass murders since 2008, Now what major thing changed then, and how did it change? Reverse that change, and have your solution. even a dog knows how to back out of something that causes harm liberals are not that smart though, they think if you keep dropping a rock on your head, it will stop hurting eventually. You know they are right but in a strange way it does quit when you find a big enough rock.


----------



## luosT_tcR

Guns are Bad, they must be banned then confiscated from the general public, when you talk about the right to bear arms, yes you have the right to bear arms, thus if you were to speak out against the government or a wealthy person, they are not allowed to chop off your arms to make an example out of you, they are only allow to chop off your hands at the base of the wrist, thus preserving the arm......... thus the right to bear arms, it doesn't say anything about modern firearms or sophisticated weaponry as the current population of American Sheeple have.


----------



## M14 Shooter

luosT_tcR said:


> Guns are Bad, they must be banned then confiscated from the general public, when you talk about the right to bear arms, yes you have the right to bear arms, thus if you were to speak out against the government or a wealthy person, they are not allowed to chop off your arms to make an example out of you, they are only allow to chop off your hands at the base of the wrist, thus preserving the arm......... thus the right to bear arms, it doesn't say anything about modern firearms or sophisticated weaponry as the current population of American Sheeple have.


Thanks for the nonsense.
Now, head back out to the playground - I understand there's a spot open in the sandbox.


----------



## 12icer

CP,  from luosT_tcr  "thus the right to bear arms, it doesn't say anything about modern firearms or sophisticated weaponry as the current population of American Sheeple have".

We pay for EVERYTHING the government has, Why shouldn't we be able to have anything IT does if we are law abiding taxpaying citizens? You miss the POINT of the second amendment. Because of the liberal edit of history leaving out so much of the REAL forming of this country, and the text and letters of the founding fathers to be "Unbiased" ( BULLSHIT). You and anyone with the ideas you have about the second, and first I'm sure, amendment is woefully lacking REAL FACTUAL based education in their target protections, and why they were written into the Bill of Rights.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

M14 Shooter said:


> luosT_tcR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guns are Bad, they must be banned then confiscated from the general public, when you talk about the right to bear arms, yes you have the right to bear arms, thus if you were to speak out against the government or a wealthy person, they are not allowed to chop off your arms to make an example out of you, they are only allow to chop off your hands at the base of the wrist, thus preserving the arm......... thus the right to bear arms, it doesn't say anything about modern firearms or sophisticated weaponry as the current population of American Sheeple have.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the nonsense.
> Now, head back out to the playground - I understand there's a spot open in the sandbox.
Click to expand...


  They probably kicked him out of the playground for scaring the other children.


----------



## Cecilie1200

luosT_tcR said:


> Guns are Bad, they must be banned then confiscated from the general public, when you talk about the right to bear arms, yes you have the right to bear arms, thus if you were to speak out against the government or a wealthy person, they are not allowed to chop off your arms to make an example out of you, they are only allow to chop off your hands at the base of the wrist, thus preserving the arm......... thus the right to bear arms, it doesn't say anything about modern firearms or sophisticated weaponry as the current population of American Sheeple have.



Terrific.  Because this board so badly needed another drooling ignoramus who thinks he's fiendishly clever.  Welcome, drooling ignoramus.  Now pipe down.


----------



## saveliberty

Compromise?  Would that be Obama style compromise or real compromise?  Doesn't really matter, because Constitutional rights are not suppose to be temporary or subject to tyranny by the government.  So, no to compromise.


----------



## 12icer

Liberals do not want to compromise, OR to have a discussion, the gun thing to them is like the race thing. When they say "Let's have a meaningful discussion" about either. It means LISTEN TO WHAT WE SAY, THIS IS WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO DO!!!!, and we will shout you down or talk over you if you have any valid point.


----------



## MDiver

Correll said:


> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> NOpe.
> 
> Any attempt to raise the cost of gun ownership is a restriction on a important Right.
> 
> 
> 
> If the whole point of the amendment is arming the militia, then shouldn't we be barring those incapable of entering the militia to have one? Think about the kind of person who couldn't even join a volunteer irregular military-lite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am.
> 
> Old people, handicapped people, women who do not want to be part of a military force...
> 
> I have read too many accounts of people like that using guns to protect themselves to want to take away their guns.
Click to expand...

Well Correll, I'm one of those "old people."  I was firing rifles on my uncle's farm when I was a kid, I served 23 years in the military, was a range safety officer at my last command, own several weapons, keep my firearms in a locked safe, excluding the one I carry on my person (concealed weapons permit) and...have absolutely no intention of shooting anyone, unless my life, or that of someone else is in serious danger of being lost by a criminal.  Just because we aren't young, doesn't mean we aren't safety conscious or not familiar with firearms.


----------



## ChrisL

MDiver said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> NOpe.
> 
> Any attempt to raise the cost of gun ownership is a restriction on a important Right.
> 
> 
> 
> If the whole point of the amendment is arming the militia, then shouldn't we be barring those incapable of entering the militia to have one? Think about the kind of person who couldn't even join a volunteer irregular military-lite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am.
> 
> Old people, handicapped people, women who do not want to be part of a military force...
> 
> I have read too many accounts of people like that using guns to protect themselves to want to take away their guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well Correll, I'm one of those "old people."  I was firing rifles on my uncle's farm when I was a kid, I served 23 years in the military, was a range safety officer at my last command, own several weapons, keep my firearms in a locked safe, excluding the one I carry on my person (concealed weapons permit) and...have absolutely no intention of shooting anyone, unless my life, or that of someone else is in serious danger of being lost by a criminal.  Just because we aren't young, doesn't mean we aren't safety conscious or not familiar with firearms.
Click to expand...


That isn't what he was saying.  He was saying that he doesn't want to see people like yourself left defenseless.


----------



## Cecilie1200

12icer said:


> Liberals do not want to compromise, OR to have a discussion, the gun thing to them is like the race thing. When they say "Let's have a meaningful discussion" about either. It means LISTEN TO WHAT WE SAY, THIS IS WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO DO!!!!, and we will shout you down or talk over you if you have any valid point.



And "compromise" to them always means "You give us everything we want, and we'll tell you how grateful you should be".


----------



## Daryl Hunt

12icer said:


> Liberals do not want to compromise, OR to have a discussion, the gun thing to them is like the race thing. When they say "Let's have a meaningful discussion" about either. It means LISTEN TO WHAT WE SAY, THIS IS WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO DO!!!!, and we will shout you down or talk over you if you have any valid point.



Let's put the 2nd amendment as you want it worded:

Your own Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

But it 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

There is nothing regulated if you only have your approved Militias.  The Black Panthers are now openly carrying and there is quite a bit of crying over that.  Does it mean only WASPs of good standings have the right to be armed?


----------



## MDiver

ChrisL said:


> MDiver said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> NOpe.
> 
> Any attempt to raise the cost of gun ownership is a restriction on a important Right.
> 
> 
> 
> If the whole point of the amendment is arming the militia, then shouldn't we be barring those incapable of entering the militia to have one? Think about the kind of person who couldn't even join a volunteer irregular military-lite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am.
> 
> Old people, handicapped people, women who do not want to be part of a military force...
> 
> I have read too many accounts of people like that using guns to protect themselves to want to take away their guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well Correll, I'm one of those "old people."  I was firing rifles on my uncle's farm when I was a kid, I served 23 years in the military, was a range safety officer at my last command, own several weapons, keep my firearms in a locked safe, excluding the one I carry on my person (concealed weapons permit) and...have absolutely no intention of shooting anyone, unless my life, or that of someone else is in serious danger of being lost by a criminal.  Just because we aren't young, doesn't mean we aren't safety conscious or not familiar with firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That isn't what he was saying.  He was saying that he doesn't want to see people like yourself left defenseless.
Click to expand...

The individual posting this topic made it clear that to purchase a weapon, one would have to register it and be a member of an acceptable militia.  Elderly wouldn't be accepted into any militia, so anyone that is elderly would be banned from gun ownership.  I disagree with gun registration and would never agree to such a change in the Amendment.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

MDiver said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MDiver said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> NOpe.
> 
> Any attempt to raise the cost of gun ownership is a restriction on a important Right.
> 
> 
> 
> If the whole point of the amendment is arming the militia, then shouldn't we be barring those incapable of entering the militia to have one? Think about the kind of person who couldn't even join a volunteer irregular military-lite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am.
> 
> Old people, handicapped people, women who do not want to be part of a military force...
> 
> I have read too many accounts of people like that using guns to protect themselves to want to take away their guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well Correll, I'm one of those "old people."  I was firing rifles on my uncle's farm when I was a kid, I served 23 years in the military, was a range safety officer at my last command, own several weapons, keep my firearms in a locked safe, excluding the one I carry on my person (concealed weapons permit) and...have absolutely no intention of shooting anyone, unless my life, or that of someone else is in serious danger of being lost by a criminal.  Just because we aren't young, doesn't mean we aren't safety conscious or not familiar with firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That isn't what he was saying.  He was saying that he doesn't want to see people like yourself left defenseless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The individual posting this topic made it clear that to purchase a weapon, one would have to register it and be a member of an acceptable militia.  Elderly wouldn't be accepted into any militia, so anyone that is elderly would be banned from gun ownership.  I disagree with gun registration and would never agree to such a change in the Amendment.
Click to expand...


The loudest proponents to having NO registration I know are from 3 people here.  All Hardcore Republicans.  Sounds good but they can't vote nor own weapons.  One is a convicted armed robber and the other two were convicted as Pedophiles.  
These 3 aren't the sharpest bulbs in the box.  With gun checks like we have here, they can't legally (and aren't smart enough to buy illegally) any weapons and rely on others to get the weapons for them.  Of course, all of us know their backgrounds and won't buy them weapons.  You see, if they get a weapon from us and commit a crime, we will be found as guilty as they will be.  

Yet, they can go out of state to a gun show and purchase the weapons by lying about it to vendors that don't know them.  But, as I stated, they ain't the cream of the gene pool.

All Obama has done is aligned the Feds with what many of the states laws.  If anyone that purchases a weapon must pass a background check them the stupid criminals won't be armed with a gun.  

Convicted Felons don't have rights but they won't tell you that they can't buy it unless they are dumber than a box of rocks.


----------



## Correll

MDiver said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MDiver said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> NOpe.
> 
> Any attempt to raise the cost of gun ownership is a restriction on a important Right.
> 
> 
> 
> If the whole point of the amendment is arming the militia, then shouldn't we be barring those incapable of entering the militia to have one? Think about the kind of person who couldn't even join a volunteer irregular military-lite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am.
> 
> Old people, handicapped people, women who do not want to be part of a military force...
> 
> I have read too many accounts of people like that using guns to protect themselves to want to take away their guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well Correll, I'm one of those "old people."  I was firing rifles on my uncle's farm when I was a kid, I served 23 years in the military, was a range safety officer at my last command, own several weapons, keep my firearms in a locked safe, excluding the one I carry on my person (concealed weapons permit) and...have absolutely no intention of shooting anyone, unless my life, or that of someone else is in serious danger of being lost by a criminal.  Just because we aren't young, doesn't mean we aren't safety conscious or not familiar with firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That isn't what he was saying.  He was saying that he doesn't want to see people like yourself left defenseless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The individual posting this topic made it clear that to purchase a weapon, one would have to register it and be a member of an acceptable militia.  Elderly wouldn't be accepted into any militia, so anyone that is elderly would be banned from gun ownership.  I disagree with gun registration and would never agree to such a change in the Amendment.
Click to expand...



Actually that is what Pedro was saying and I was* very* much disagreeing with him.

The nested quotes can be confusing.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Daryl Hunt said:


> The loudest proponents to having NO registration I know are from 3 people here.


Of course - there's no way to soundly argue that is it necessary for the state to know who owns each of the356,000,000 gun in the US.


----------



## Book of Jeremiah

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> DarkFury said:
> 
> 
> 
> No
> 
> 
> 
> Care to give your reason?
Click to expand...

Are you writing a book for someone?


----------



## 12icer

Daryl Hunt said:


> Let's put the 2nd amendment as you want it worded:
> 
> Your own Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
> 
> But it 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
> 
> There is nothing regulated if you only have your approved Militias.  The Black Panthers are now openly carrying and there is quite a bit of crying over that.  Does it mean only WASPs of good standings have the right to be armed?




Actually there are two parts of the 2nd divided by a comma. English comp would say the rule for the use of the comma is in this case to divide the INTRODUCTORY phrase, from the MAIN phrase of the 2nd which is THE RIGHT of the PEOPLE to KEEP and BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Why is that so hard to understand for people who claim to be more intelligent than the rest of us, BTW did you know Jayne Mansfield's IQ was around 160 those around the swimming pool who didn't know her thought she was dumb too. Like most liberals they were intellectually superior in their own mirror.


----------



## frigidweirdo

12icer said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's put the 2nd amendment as you want it worded:
> 
> Your own Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
> 
> But it 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
> 
> There is nothing regulated if you only have your approved Militias.  The Black Panthers are now openly carrying and there is quite a bit of crying over that.  Does it mean only WASPs of good standings have the right to be armed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually there are two parts of the 2nd divided by a comma. English comp would say the rule for the use of the comma is in this case to divide the INTRODUCTORY phrase, from the MAIN phrase of the 2nd which is THE RIGHT of the PEOPLE to KEEP and BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Why is that so hard to understand for people who claim to be more intelligent than the rest of us, BTW did you know Jayne Mansfield's IQ was around 160 those around the swimming pool who didn't know her thought she was dumb too. Like most liberals they were intellectually superior in their own mirror.
Click to expand...



It's true that the only rights in this are the rights to keep arms and bear arms.

However what Bear arms means is often distorted to fit people's agendas. 

The "introduction" as you call it gives the reason. The reason individuals have the right to keep arms (own arms) is so the militia has a ready supply of weapons. The reason individuals have the right to bear arms (to be in the militia) is so the militia has a ready supply of personnel to use those arms.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

12icer said:


> Actually there are two parts of the 2nd divided by a comma. English comp would say the rule for the use of the comma is in this case to divide the INTRODUCTORY phrase, from the MAIN phrase of the 2nd which is THE RIGHT of the PEOPLE to KEEP and BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Why is that so hard to understand for people who claim to be more intelligent than the rest of us…



  It's a matter of dishonesty, rather that illiteracy or ignorance.  Anyone with a basic fluency in English can read what the Second Amendment clearly says,and understand what it means.  There really isn't any valid excuse for claiming not to understand it, nor for claiming that it means anything different than what it says.

  Those who do not agree with it, and who do not wish for it to be obeyed, know damn well that that is what their position is.  So they try to lie about what the Second Amendment says, and what it means.  If they were honest, then they'd admit that what they want cannot be reconciled with the Second Amendment,and can only be legitimately achieved by amending the Constitution to overturn the Second Amendment.  But then, if they were honest, they'd also have to admit what their real reasons are for wanting honest Americans to be disarmed,and vulnerable to criminals, terrorists, and tyrants; and they would have to admit that they are on the side of criminals, terrorists,and tyrants, and against that of honest Americans.

  Honesty is not a trait that can be reconciled with the positions and purposes of the anti-Second-Amendment scumbags.




12icer said:


> BTW did you know Jayne Mansfield's IQ was around 160 those around the swimming pool who didn't know her thought she was dumb too. Like most liberals they were intellectually superior in their own mirror.



  You know the bar that hangs down at the back of large trucks and semi-trailers?  That's known as a “Mansfield bar”—after Jayne Mansfield.

  Ms. Mansfield was killed in 1967, in a terrible car accident, in which the car in which she was riding rear-ended a truck.  The car went under the truck, shearing the top of the passenger compartment off,and causing immediately-fatal head injuries to Ms. Mansfield, and two other adults that were in the front seat of the car.  Miraculously, some children in the back seat survived with only minor injuries.

  The purpose of the Mansfield bar is to prevent that kind of accident, to stop a car from riding under the back of a truck as Ms. Mansfield's car did that fatal night.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Bob Blaylock said:


> 12icer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually there are two parts of the 2nd divided by a comma. English comp would say the rule for the use of the comma is in this case to divide the INTRODUCTORY phrase, from the MAIN phrase of the 2nd which is THE RIGHT of the PEOPLE to KEEP and BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Why is that so hard to understand for people who claim to be more intelligent than the rest of us…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a matter of dishonesty, rather that illiteracy or ignorance.  Anyone with a basic fluency in English can read what the Second Amendment clearly says,and understand what it means.  There really isn't any valid excuse for claiming not to understand it, nor for claiming that it means anything different than what it says.
> 
> Those who do not agree with it, and who do not wish for it to be obeyed, know damn well that that is what their position is.  So they try to lie about what the Second Amendment says, and what it means.  If they were honest, then they'd admit that what they want cannot be reconciled with the Second Amendment,and can only be legitimately achieved by amending the Constitution to overturn the Second Amendment.  But then, if they were honest, they'd also have to admit what their real reasons are for wanting honest Americans to be disarmed,and vulnerable to criminals, terrorists, and tyrants; and they would have to admit that they are on the side of criminals, terrorists,and tyrants, and against that of honest Americans.
> 
> Honesty is not a trait that can be reconciled with the positions and purposes of the anti-Second-Amendment scumbags.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 12icer said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW did you know Jayne Mansfield's IQ was around 160 those around the swimming pool who didn't know her thought she was dumb too. Like most liberals they were intellectually superior in their own mirror.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know the bar that hangs down at the back of large trucks and semi-trailers?  That's known as a “Mansfield bar”—after Jayne Mansfield.
> 
> Ms. Mansfield was killed in 1967, in a terrible car accident, in which the car in which she was riding rear-ended a truck.  The car went under the truck, shearing the top of the passenger compartment off,and causing immediately-fatal head injuries to Ms. Mansfield, and two other adults that were in the front seat of the car.  Miraculously, some children in the back seat survived with only minor injuries.
> 
> The purpose of the Mansfield bar is to prevent that kind of accident, to stop a car from riding under the back of a truck as Ms. Mansfield's car did that fatal night.
Click to expand...


Disagree totally. The right to bear arms isn't clear what it means. Throughout US history, from the time before the 2A was an amendment, through the Presser Supreme Court case and the Dick act 1902 and to the Heller Court case, bear arms has been the right to be in the militia. It has never, ever been seen by the Supreme Court as the right to carry arms around. Not even the NRA thinks it is, seeing as they support carry and conceal permits which would be unconstitutional were the right to bear arms the right to carry arms.


----------



## Iceweasel

frigidweirdo said:


> 12icer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's put the 2nd amendment as you want it worded:
> 
> Your own Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
> 
> But it 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
> 
> There is nothing regulated if you only have your approved Militias.  The Black Panthers are now openly carrying and there is quite a bit of crying over that.  Does it mean only WASPs of good standings have the right to be armed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually there are two parts of the 2nd divided by a comma. English comp would say the rule for the use of the comma is in this case to divide the INTRODUCTORY phrase, from the MAIN phrase of the 2nd which is THE RIGHT of the PEOPLE to KEEP and BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Why is that so hard to understand for people who claim to be more intelligent than the rest of us, BTW did you know Jayne Mansfield's IQ was around 160 those around the swimming pool who didn't know her thought she was dumb too. Like most liberals they were intellectually superior in their own mirror.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's true that the only rights in this are the rights to keep arms and bear arms.
> 
> However what Bear arms means is often distorted to fit people's agendas.
> 
> The "introduction" as you call it gives the reason. The reason individuals have the right to keep arms (own arms) is so the militia has a ready supply of weapons. The reason individuals have the right to bear arms (to be in the militia) is so the militia has a ready supply of personnel to use those arms.
Click to expand...

How is that bearing arms if they are in storage in case a militia gets called into action? You're reasoning is mindless, inconsistent and struck down everywhere it's been tried. You know what they say about people trying the same thing expecting different results?


----------



## Iceweasel

frigidweirdo said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 12icer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually there are two parts of the 2nd divided by a comma. English comp would say the rule for the use of the comma is in this case to divide the INTRODUCTORY phrase, from the MAIN phrase of the 2nd which is THE RIGHT of the PEOPLE to KEEP and BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Why is that so hard to understand for people who claim to be more intelligent than the rest of us…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a matter of dishonesty, rather that illiteracy or ignorance.  Anyone with a basic fluency in English can read what the Second Amendment clearly says,and understand what it means.  There really isn't any valid excuse for claiming not to understand it, nor for claiming that it means anything different than what it says.
> 
> Those who do not agree with it, and who do not wish for it to be obeyed, know damn well that that is what their position is.  So they try to lie about what the Second Amendment says, and what it means.  If they were honest, then they'd admit that what they want cannot be reconciled with the Second Amendment,and can only be legitimately achieved by amending the Constitution to overturn the Second Amendment.  But then, if they were honest, they'd also have to admit what their real reasons are for wanting honest Americans to be disarmed,and vulnerable to criminals, terrorists, and tyrants; and they would have to admit that they are on the side of criminals, terrorists,and tyrants, and against that of honest Americans.
> 
> Honesty is not a trait that can be reconciled with the positions and purposes of the anti-Second-Amendment scumbags.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 12icer said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW did you know Jayne Mansfield's IQ was around 160 those around the swimming pool who didn't know her thought she was dumb too. Like most liberals they were intellectually superior in their own mirror.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know the bar that hangs down at the back of large trucks and semi-trailers?  That's known as a “Mansfield bar”—after Jayne Mansfield.
> 
> Ms. Mansfield was killed in 1967, in a terrible car accident, in which the car in which she was riding rear-ended a truck.  The car went under the truck, shearing the top of the passenger compartment off,and causing immediately-fatal head injuries to Ms. Mansfield, and two other adults that were in the front seat of the car.  Miraculously, some children in the back seat survived with only minor injuries.
> 
> The purpose of the Mansfield bar is to prevent that kind of accident, to stop a car from riding under the back of a truck as Ms. Mansfield's car did that fatal night.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Disagree totally. The right to bear arms isn't clear what it means. Throughout US history, from the time before the 2A was an amendment, through the Presser Supreme Court case and the Dick act 1902 and to the Heller Court case, bear arms has been the right to be in the militia. It has never, ever been seen by the Supreme Court as the right to carry arms around. Not even the NRA thinks it is, seeing as they support carry and conceal permits which would be unconstitutional were the right to bear arms the right to carry arms.
Click to expand...

When did they hear the case? How do you know what all justices thought prior? Are you omnipresent? The fact that some states restrict carry against our rights doesn't prove you are right.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

frigidweirdo said:


> Disagree totally. The right to bear arms isn't clear what it means.



  It is only _“unclear”_ to those who are opposed to it, and do not want it to be upheld.

  We hear, often enough, that _“Ignorance of the law is no excuse.”_ as applied to an individual who unwittingly runs afoul of an obscure law.  If that principle is to hold any validity, then ignorance of the highest law—the Constitution—is certainly no excuse for any public servant who has explicitly sworn an oath to uphold and defend it, and who is subsequently caught willfully participating in any violation thereof.


----------



## jillian

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.
> 
> What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?



you're actually incorrect. until scale's Heller decision, 200 plus years of justices KNEW the 2nd applied to a well-regulated militia and laughed out loud at even the idea that the 2nd provided a personal right of gun ownership.

that said, even Heller acknowledged that reasonable regulation is appropriate and it is only a "total ban" which is not.

the right forgets that part and actually are intentionally hostile to it. (which is laughable since it's the law... but well... that's never stopped them).


----------



## Iceweasel

jillian said:


> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.
> 
> What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you're actually incorrect. until scale's Heller decision, 200 plus years of justices KNEW the 2nd applied to a well-regulated militia and laughed out loud at even the idea that the 2nd provided a personal right of gun ownership.
> 
> that said, even Heller acknowledged that reasonable regulation is appropriate and it is only a "total ban" which is not.
> 
> the right forgets that part and actually are intentionally hostile to it. (which is laughable since it's the law... but well... that's never stopped them).
Click to expand...

When you are done chuckling up a storm try supporting your assertions. We can all use a good chuckle.


----------



## ChrisL

MDiver said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MDiver said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MDiver said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am.
> 
> Old people, handicapped people, women who do not want to be part of a military force...
> 
> I have read too many accounts of people like that using guns to protect themselves to want to take away their guns.
> 
> 
> 
> Well Correll, I'm one of those "old people."  I was firing rifles on my uncle's farm when I was a kid, I served 23 years in the military, was a range safety officer at my last command, own several weapons, keep my firearms in a locked safe, excluding the one I carry on my person (concealed weapons permit) and...have absolutely no intention of shooting anyone, unless my life, or that of someone else is in serious danger of being lost by a criminal.  Just because we aren't young, doesn't mean we aren't safety conscious or not familiar with firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That isn't what he was saying.  He was saying that he doesn't want to see people like yourself left defenseless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The individual posting this topic made it clear that to purchase a weapon, one would have to register it and be a member of an acceptable militia.  Elderly wouldn't be accepted into any militia, so anyone that is elderly would be banned from gun ownership.  I disagree with gun registration and would never agree to such a change in the Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The loudest proponents to having NO registration I know are from 3 people here.  All Hardcore Republicans.  Sounds good but they can't vote nor own weapons.  One is a convicted armed robber and the other two were convicted as Pedophiles.
> These 3 aren't the sharpest bulbs in the box.  With gun checks like we have here, they can't legally (and aren't smart enough to buy illegally) any weapons and rely on others to get the weapons for them.  Of course, all of us know their backgrounds and won't buy them weapons.  You see, if they get a weapon from us and commit a crime, we will be found as guilty as they will be.
> 
> Yet, they can go out of state to a gun show and purchase the weapons by lying about it to vendors that don't know them.  But, as I stated, they ain't the cream of the gene pool.
> 
> All Obama has done is aligned the Feds with what many of the states laws.  If anyone that purchases a weapon must pass a background check them the stupid criminals won't be armed with a gun.
> 
> Convicted Felons don't have rights but they won't tell you that they can't buy it unless they are dumber than a box of rocks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hunt, let me guess, you're one of the pedophiles.
Click to expand...


What on earth are you talking about?  I hope you realize it is against the rules to accuse other members of committing crimes???  

Try to address the issues please.  When you personally attack other posters, it shows that you have lost the argument, not to mention any credibility.


----------



## jillian

Iceweasel said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.
> 
> What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you're actually incorrect. until scale's Heller decision, 200 plus years of justices KNEW the 2nd applied to a well-regulated militia and laughed out loud at even the idea that the 2nd provided a personal right of gun ownership.
> 
> that said, even Heller acknowledged that reasonable regulation is appropriate and it is only a "total ban" which is not.
> 
> the right forgets that part and actually are intentionally hostile to it. (which is laughable since it's the law... but well... that's never stopped them).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you are done chuckling up a storm try supporting your assertions. We can all use a good chuckle.
Click to expand...


feel free to read heller. it's really boring for me to keep posting it and having the gun nuts ignore it.

read. learn.

and you pretend constitutionalists really should know what the status was before scalia got hold of it.

a read of the dissent of heller might educate you as well even though it is not the current law.

as for the justices laughing at your lunacy:

A fraud on the American public.” That’s how former Chief Justice Warren Burger described the idea that the Second Amendment gives an unfettered individual right to a gun. When he spoke these words to PBS in 1990, the rock-ribbed conservative appointed by Richard Nixon was expressing the longtime consensus of historians and judges across the political spectrum. 


Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-second-amendment-106856#ixzz3xDrmChq3

not that you'll read it, acknowledge e it or stop trolling on the subject.


----------



## Geaux4it

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.
> 
> What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?



No


----------



## jillian

ChrisL said:


> MDiver said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MDiver said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MDiver said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well Correll, I'm one of those "old people."  I was firing rifles on my uncle's farm when I was a kid, I served 23 years in the military, was a range safety officer at my last command, own several weapons, keep my firearms in a locked safe, excluding the one I carry on my person (concealed weapons permit) and...have absolutely no intention of shooting anyone, unless my life, or that of someone else is in serious danger of being lost by a criminal.  Just because we aren't young, doesn't mean we aren't safety conscious or not familiar with firearms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't what he was saying.  He was saying that he doesn't want to see people like yourself left defenseless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The individual posting this topic made it clear that to purchase a weapon, one would have to register it and be a member of an acceptable militia.  Elderly wouldn't be accepted into any militia, so anyone that is elderly would be banned from gun ownership.  I disagree with gun registration and would never agree to such a change in the Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The loudest proponents to having NO registration I know are from 3 people here.  All Hardcore Republicans.  Sounds good but they can't vote nor own weapons.  One is a convicted armed robber and the other two were convicted as Pedophiles.
> These 3 aren't the sharpest bulbs in the box.  With gun checks like we have here, they can't legally (and aren't smart enough to buy illegally) any weapons and rely on others to get the weapons for them.  Of course, all of us know their backgrounds and won't buy them weapons.  You see, if they get a weapon from us and commit a crime, we will be found as guilty as they will be.
> 
> Yet, they can go out of state to a gun show and purchase the weapons by lying about it to vendors that don't know them.  But, as I stated, they ain't the cream of the gene pool.
> 
> All Obama has done is aligned the Feds with what many of the states laws.  If anyone that purchases a weapon must pass a background check them the stupid criminals won't be armed with a gun.
> 
> Convicted Felons don't have rights but they won't tell you that they can't buy it unless they are dumber than a box of rocks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hunt, let me guess, you're one of the pedophiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What on earth are you talking about?  I hope you realize it is against the rules to accuse other members of committing crimes???
> 
> Try to address the issues please.  When you personally attack other posters, it shows that you have lost the argument, not to mention any credibility.
Click to expand...


let's see you defend someone who isn't a rightwingnut.


----------



## Iceweasel

jillian said:


> feel free to read heller.


Feel free to back up your claims. Heller wasn't long ago. Your smokescreen won't work.


----------



## jillian

Iceweasel said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> feel free to read heller.
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to back up your claims. Heller wasn't long ago. Your smokescreen won't work.
Click to expand...


i did.

read the link.

otherwise, stop trolling. because i gave you what you needed.

now grow up.


----------



## Iceweasel

jillian said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> feel free to read heller.
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to back up your claims. Heller wasn't long ago. Your smokescreen won't work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i did.
> 
> read the link.
> 
> otherwise, stop trolling. because i gave you what you needed.
> 
> now grow up.
Click to expand...

You posted no content, I don't do research for others. You're full of shit and throwing more out there won't work.


----------



## ChrisL

jillian said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MDiver said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MDiver said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't what he was saying.  He was saying that he doesn't want to see people like yourself left defenseless.
> 
> 
> 
> The individual posting this topic made it clear that to purchase a weapon, one would have to register it and be a member of an acceptable militia.  Elderly wouldn't be accepted into any militia, so anyone that is elderly would be banned from gun ownership.  I disagree with gun registration and would never agree to such a change in the Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The loudest proponents to having NO registration I know are from 3 people here.  All Hardcore Republicans.  Sounds good but they can't vote nor own weapons.  One is a convicted armed robber and the other two were convicted as Pedophiles.
> These 3 aren't the sharpest bulbs in the box.  With gun checks like we have here, they can't legally (and aren't smart enough to buy illegally) any weapons and rely on others to get the weapons for them.  Of course, all of us know their backgrounds and won't buy them weapons.  You see, if they get a weapon from us and commit a crime, we will be found as guilty as they will be.
> 
> Yet, they can go out of state to a gun show and purchase the weapons by lying about it to vendors that don't know them.  But, as I stated, they ain't the cream of the gene pool.
> 
> All Obama has done is aligned the Feds with what many of the states laws.  If anyone that purchases a weapon must pass a background check them the stupid criminals won't be armed with a gun.
> 
> Convicted Felons don't have rights but they won't tell you that they can't buy it unless they are dumber than a box of rocks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hunt, let me guess, you're one of the pedophiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What on earth are you talking about?  I hope you realize it is against the rules to accuse other members of committing crimes???
> 
> Try to address the issues please.  When you personally attack other posters, it shows that you have lost the argument, not to mention any credibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> let's see you defend someone who isn't a rightwingnut.
Click to expand...


My points stand.


----------



## ChrisL

Iceweasel said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> feel free to read heller.
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to back up your claims. Heller wasn't long ago. Your smokescreen won't work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i did.
> 
> read the link.
> 
> otherwise, stop trolling. because i gave you what you needed.
> 
> now grow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You posted no content, I don't do research for others. You're full of shit and throwing more out there won't work.
Click to expand...


When does she ever post anything of "content?"


----------



## Iceweasel

ChrisL said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> feel free to read heller.
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to back up your claims. Heller wasn't long ago. Your smokescreen won't work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i did.
> 
> read the link.
> 
> otherwise, stop trolling. because i gave you what you needed.
> 
> now grow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You posted no content, I don't do research for others. You're full of shit and throwing more out there won't work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When does she ever post anything of "content?"
Click to expand...

She doesn't, probably somewhere else making more bullshit claims and calling all dissenters trolls.


----------



## jillian

ChrisL said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> feel free to read heller.
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to back up your claims. Heller wasn't long ago. Your smokescreen won't work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i did.
> 
> read the link.
> 
> otherwise, stop trolling. because i gave you what you needed.
> 
> now grow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You posted no content, I don't do research for others. You're full of shit and throwing more out there won't work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When does she ever post anything of "content?"
Click to expand...


i did.

just now to people like you. since, clearly you're incapable of either reading or responding to what was posted.

now quiet, loon.


----------



## Iceweasel

jillian said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> feel free to read heller.
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to back up your claims. Heller wasn't long ago. Your smokescreen won't work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i did.
> 
> read the link.
> 
> otherwise, stop trolling. because i gave you what you needed.
> 
> now grow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You posted no content, I don't do research for others. You're full of shit and throwing more out there won't work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When does she ever post anything of "content?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i did.
> 
> just now to people like you. since, clearly you're incapable of either reading or responding to what was posted.
> 
> now quiet, loon.
Click to expand...

Liar. You posted a hyperlink. That's just a short cut to another website. Posting short cuts to other websites doesn't support anything except your ability to post short cuts to other websites. If there were anything there to back up your stupid claims you could have posted it.


----------



## jillian

Iceweasel said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to back up your claims. Heller wasn't long ago. Your smokescreen won't work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i did.
> 
> read the link.
> 
> otherwise, stop trolling. because i gave you what you needed.
> 
> now grow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You posted no content, I don't do research for others. You're full of shit and throwing more out there won't work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When does she ever post anything of "content?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i did.
> 
> just now to people like you. since, clearly you're incapable of either reading or responding to what was posted.
> 
> now quiet, loon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar. You posted a hyperlink. That's just a short cut to another website. Posting short cuts to other websites doesn't support anything except your ability to post short cuts to other websites. If there were anything there to back up your stupid claims you could have posted it.
Click to expand...


no, loon. i gave you a link.

don't call me a liar just because you're compulsive about it and don't know how to tell the truth.

read the link i provided.

read the case.

otherwise, go away because you're nothing but a troll

btw, you and others like you are the reason we call you rightwingnuts and trolls. man up.


----------



## ChrisL

jillian said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.
> 
> What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you're actually incorrect. until scale's Heller decision, 200 plus years of justices KNEW the 2nd applied to a well-regulated militia and laughed out loud at even the idea that the 2nd provided a personal right of gun ownership.
> 
> that said, even Heller acknowledged that reasonable regulation is appropriate and it is only a "total ban" which is not.
> 
> the right forgets that part and actually are intentionally hostile to it. (which is laughable since it's the law... but well... that's never stopped them).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you are done chuckling up a storm try supporting your assertions. We can all use a good chuckle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> feel free to read heller. it's really boring for me to keep posting it and having the gun nuts ignore it.
> 
> read. learn.
> 
> and you pretend constitutionalists really should know what the status was before scalia got hold of it.
> 
> a read of the dissent of heller might educate you as well even though it is not the current law.
> 
> as for the justices laughing at your lunacy:
> 
> A fraud on the American public.” That’s how former Chief Justice Warren Burger described the idea that the Second Amendment gives an unfettered individual right to a gun. When he spoke these words to PBS in 1990, the rock-ribbed conservative appointed by Richard Nixon was expressing the longtime consensus of historians and judges across the political spectrum.
> 
> 
> Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-second-amendment-106856#ixzz3xDrmChq3
> 
> not that you'll read it, acknowledge e it or stop trolling on the subject.
Click to expand...


Bullshit.  People have always been free to own guns since the founding of this country.  In fact, the people were expected to be armed.  If any of these claims were true, then back when the second amendment was written, people would not have been able to have firearms.  That there proves you wrong.  Silly Jilly.


----------



## ChrisL

jillian said:


> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.
> 
> What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you're actually incorrect. until scale's Heller decision, 200 plus years of justices KNEW the 2nd applied to a well-regulated militia and laughed out loud at even the idea that the 2nd provided a personal right of gun ownership.
> 
> that said, even Heller acknowledged that reasonable regulation is appropriate and it is only a "total ban" which is not.
> 
> the right forgets that part and actually are intentionally hostile to it. (which is laughable since it's the law... but well... that's never stopped them).
Click to expand...


Have you ever read the federalist papers Jilly?


----------



## ChrisL

jillian said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MDiver said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MDiver said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't what he was saying.  He was saying that he doesn't want to see people like yourself left defenseless.
> 
> 
> 
> The individual posting this topic made it clear that to purchase a weapon, one would have to register it and be a member of an acceptable militia.  Elderly wouldn't be accepted into any militia, so anyone that is elderly would be banned from gun ownership.  I disagree with gun registration and would never agree to such a change in the Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The loudest proponents to having NO registration I know are from 3 people here.  All Hardcore Republicans.  Sounds good but they can't vote nor own weapons.  One is a convicted armed robber and the other two were convicted as Pedophiles.
> These 3 aren't the sharpest bulbs in the box.  With gun checks like we have here, they can't legally (and aren't smart enough to buy illegally) any weapons and rely on others to get the weapons for them.  Of course, all of us know their backgrounds and won't buy them weapons.  You see, if they get a weapon from us and commit a crime, we will be found as guilty as they will be.
> 
> Yet, they can go out of state to a gun show and purchase the weapons by lying about it to vendors that don't know them.  But, as I stated, they ain't the cream of the gene pool.
> 
> All Obama has done is aligned the Feds with what many of the states laws.  If anyone that purchases a weapon must pass a background check them the stupid criminals won't be armed with a gun.
> 
> Convicted Felons don't have rights but they won't tell you that they can't buy it unless they are dumber than a box of rocks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hunt, let me guess, you're one of the pedophiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What on earth are you talking about?  I hope you realize it is against the rules to accuse other members of committing crimes???
> 
> Try to address the issues please.  When you personally attack other posters, it shows that you have lost the argument, not to mention any credibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> let's see you defend someone who isn't a rightwingnut.
Click to expand...


Is this the best you can do?  I thought you were a "lawyer?"


----------



## iolo

The total gutlessness of the gunmen means they never come out from under their beds long enough to discuss a compromise, poor little bed-wetting Mothers' boys.


----------



## ChrisL

iolo said:


> The total gutlessness of the gunmen means they never come out from under their beds long enough to discuss a compromise, poor little bed-wetting Mothers' boys.



We don't compromise on our RIGHTS.  Duh.  That would be incredibly stupid.


----------



## ChrisL

iolo said:


> The total gutlessness of the gunmen means they never come out from under their beds long enough to discuss a compromise, poor little bed-wetting Mothers' boys.



Since MOST legal gun owners never shoot anyone, there is no need for them to compromise on anything at all.  Just because some psychos are going to pick up a weapon and kill people, that is NOT a reason for us to give up anything!


----------



## iolo

Just go on murdering more people  than any rich country then, and enjoy it!   Bloody weirdoes!


----------



## Iceweasel

jillian said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> i did.
> 
> read the link.
> 
> otherwise, stop trolling. because i gave you what you needed.
> 
> now grow up.
> 
> 
> 
> You posted no content, I don't do research for others. You're full of shit and throwing more out there won't work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When does she ever post anything of "content?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i did.
> 
> just now to people like you. since, clearly you're incapable of either reading or responding to what was posted.
> 
> now quiet, loon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar. You posted a hyperlink. That's just a short cut to another website. Posting short cuts to other websites doesn't support anything except your ability to post short cuts to other websites. If there were anything there to back up your stupid claims you could have posted it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no, loon. i gave you a link.
> 
> don't call me a liar just because you're compulsive about it and don't know how to tell the truth.
> 
> read the link i provided.
> 
> read the case.
> 
> otherwise, go away because you're nothing but a troll
> 
> btw, you and others like you are the reason we call you rightwingnuts and trolls. man up.
Click to expand...

You posted a link, asshole. Then you refuse to post any content while demanding I do your research and find the relevant portion that supports your claim.

That doesn't prove anything except low character on your part. But we all knew that already!


----------



## frigidweirdo

Bob Blaylock said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Disagree totally. The right to bear arms isn't clear what it means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is only _“unclear”_ to those who are opposed to it, and do not want it to be upheld.
> 
> We hear, often enough, that _“Ignorance of the law is no excuse.”_ as applied to an individual who unwittingly runs afoul of an obscure law.  If that principle is to hold any validity, then ignorance of the highest law—the Constitution—is certainly no excuse for any public servant who has explicitly sworn an oath to uphold and defend it, and who is subsequently caught willfully participating in any violation thereof.
Click to expand...


Fine, those who claim it is the right to carry arms claim it is clear, even when they show they don't understand what it means.


----------



## Iceweasel

iolo said:


> Just go on murdering more people  than any rich country then, and enjoy it!   Bloody weirdoes!


When Europeans visit the US one of the things they like to do most is go to the gun range. Sorry for your loss.


----------



## Iceweasel

frigidweirdo said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Disagree totally. The right to bear arms isn't clear what it means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is only _“unclear”_ to those who are opposed to it, and do not want it to be upheld.
> 
> We hear, often enough, that _“Ignorance of the law is no excuse.”_ as applied to an individual who unwittingly runs afoul of an obscure law.  If that principle is to hold any validity, then ignorance of the highest law—the Constitution—is certainly no excuse for any public servant who has explicitly sworn an oath to uphold and defend it, and who is subsequently caught willfully participating in any violation thereof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fine, those who claim it is the right to carry arms claim it is clear, even when they show they don't understand what it means.
Click to expand...

No, that's what you think is what happens because you are stupid and nuts. 300 million guns in private hands all because of a mistaken belief? LOL.


----------



## iolo

Iceweavil - *That *is all you have to say to justify all your thousands of murders?   You are one very, very sick lot of gunmen!


----------



## Bob Blaylock

frigidweirdo said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Disagree totally. The right to bear arms isn't clear what it means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is only _“unclear”_ to those who are opposed to it, and do not want it to be upheld.
> 
> We hear, often enough, that _“Ignorance of the law is no excuse.”_ as applied to an individual who unwittingly runs afoul of an obscure law.  If that principle is to hold any validity, then ignorance of the highest law—the Constitution—is certainly no excuse for any public servant who has explicitly sworn an oath to uphold and defend it, and who is subsequently caught willfully participating in any violation thereof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fine, those who claim it is the right to carry arms claim it is clear, even when they show they don't understand what it means.
Click to expand...


  It is absolutely clear what it means.  The core of it is, _“…the right of the people…shall not be infringed.”_  It identifies a right, states that this right belongs to the people, and it forbids this right from being infringed.  There is no honest or rational way to reconcile this with any position or policy that in any way interferes with the exercise of this right by individual free Americans.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Bob Blaylock said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Disagree totally. The right to bear arms isn't clear what it means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is only _“unclear”_ to those who are opposed to it, and do not want it to be upheld.
> 
> We hear, often enough, that _“Ignorance of the law is no excuse.”_ as applied to an individual who unwittingly runs afoul of an obscure law.  If that principle is to hold any validity, then ignorance of the highest law—the Constitution—is certainly no excuse for any public servant who has explicitly sworn an oath to uphold and defend it, and who is subsequently caught willfully participating in any violation thereof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fine, those who claim it is the right to carry arms claim it is clear, even when they show they don't understand what it means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is absolutely clear what it means.  The core of it is, _“…the right of the people…shall not be infringed.”_  It identifies a right, states that this right belongs to the people, and it forbids this right from being infringed.  There is no honest or rational way to reconcile this with any position or policy that in any way interferes with the exercise of this right by individual free Americans.
Click to expand...


So what is the right and what shall not be infringed? I mean, prisoners in prisons, mental people etc, should they not have this right infringed? Do you think the people would benefit from having criminals and mentally ill people having guns?

The thing is, no right is absolute. Even if the right says "shall not be infringed". At no time were prisoners able to have guns int he USA, not the day after the 2A was passed, not 2 years after, not 20 years after and not now. So why do you think this would be the case?

And you say it's absolutely clear, but it doesn't appear to be, does it?


----------



## M14 Shooter

jillian said:


> you're actually incorrect. until scale's Heller decision, 200 plus years of justices KNEW the 2nd applied to a well-regulated militia and laughed out loud at even the idea that the 2nd provided a personal right of gun ownership.


This is an outright lie; not a single SCotUS decision supports your statement.


> that said, even Heller acknowledged that reasonable regulation is appropriate and it is only a "total ban" which is not.


Another lie - if you;d had actually road Heller, you'd know this is untrue.


----------



## M14 Shooter

ChrisL said:


> Is this the best you can do?  I thought you were a "lawyer?"


She shines their shoes and listens to them talk while doing so.
She figures that's good enough.


----------



## Cecilie1200

ChrisL said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> feel free to read heller.
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to back up your claims. Heller wasn't long ago. Your smokescreen won't work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i did.
> 
> read the link.
> 
> otherwise, stop trolling. because i gave you what you needed.
> 
> now grow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You posted no content, I don't do research for others. You're full of shit and throwing more out there won't work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When does she ever post anything of "content?"
Click to expand...


Jillian's posts have "content" the same way my toilet does when the flush mechanism breaks.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Iceweasel said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to back up your claims. Heller wasn't long ago. Your smokescreen won't work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i did.
> 
> read the link.
> 
> otherwise, stop trolling. because i gave you what you needed.
> 
> now grow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You posted no content, I don't do research for others. You're full of shit and throwing more out there won't work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When does she ever post anything of "content?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i did.
> 
> just now to people like you. since, clearly you're incapable of either reading or responding to what was posted.
> 
> now quiet, loon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar. You posted a hyperlink. That's just a short cut to another website. Posting short cuts to other websites doesn't support anything except your ability to post short cuts to other websites. If there were anything there to back up your stupid claims you could have posted it.
Click to expand...


And it was Politico, at that.  Like I said, same content as a broken toilet.


----------



## jillian

Cecilie1200 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> feel free to read heller.
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to back up your claims. Heller wasn't long ago. Your smokescreen won't work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i did.
> 
> read the link.
> 
> otherwise, stop trolling. because i gave you what you needed.
> 
> now grow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You posted no content, I don't do research for others. You're full of shit and throwing more out there won't work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When does she ever post anything of "content?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jillian's posts have "content" the same way my toilet does when the flush mechanism breaks.
Click to expand...


so spaketh the disgusting cess pit


----------



## jillian

Cecilie1200 said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> i did.
> 
> read the link.
> 
> otherwise, stop trolling. because i gave you what you needed.
> 
> now grow up.
> 
> 
> 
> You posted no content, I don't do research for others. You're full of shit and throwing more out there won't work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When does she ever post anything of "content?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i did.
> 
> just now to people like you. since, clearly you're incapable of either reading or responding to what was posted.
> 
> now quiet, loon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar. You posted a hyperlink. That's just a short cut to another website. Posting short cuts to other websites doesn't support anything except your ability to post short cuts to other websites. If there were anything there to back up your stupid claims you could have posted it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it was Politico, at that.  Like I said, same content as a broken toilet.
Click to expand...


that would be your posts, madam cesspit.


----------



## Cecilie1200

jillian said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to back up your claims. Heller wasn't long ago. Your smokescreen won't work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i did.
> 
> read the link.
> 
> otherwise, stop trolling. because i gave you what you needed.
> 
> now grow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You posted no content, I don't do research for others. You're full of shit and throwing more out there won't work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When does she ever post anything of "content?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jillian's posts have "content" the same way my toilet does when the flush mechanism breaks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so spaketh the disgusting cess pit
Click to expand...


"Spaketh"?  You trying to be clever is like Hillary Clinton trying to be Miss America.  Give it up and stick to things you have the equipment for.


----------



## Cecilie1200

jillian said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> You posted no content, I don't do research for others. You're full of shit and throwing more out there won't work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When does she ever post anything of "content?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i did.
> 
> just now to people like you. since, clearly you're incapable of either reading or responding to what was posted.
> 
> now quiet, loon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar. You posted a hyperlink. That's just a short cut to another website. Posting short cuts to other websites doesn't support anything except your ability to post short cuts to other websites. If there were anything there to back up your stupid claims you could have posted it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it was Politico, at that.  Like I said, same content as a broken toilet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that would be your posts, madam cesspit.
Click to expand...


Ooh, the vaunted leftist "I'm rubber and you're glue" argument.  I am cut to the quick by your devastating riposte.


----------



## 12icer

Only liberals are stupid enough to blame the second amendment, gun owners, gun manufacturers and the NRA for gun crime. It proves their infantile wish to be the playground bully, and control everyone. THE FACT is the worst mass murder in the history of this country was committed by the government. It is true that governments murder thousands of times more citizens than all of the gun owners in the world CRIMINAL, and LEGAL. Your idea that taking guns from law abiding citizens will make it safer in the USA without a major change to all of your other rights, like privacy, free speech, freedom , freedom from unreasonable search, and PUBLIC TRIAL too. the second protects all the rest, if you can't understand that you need to go to a SOCIALIST country for a while.


----------



## MDiver

ChrisL said:


> MDiver said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MDiver said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MDiver said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well Correll, I'm one of those "old people."  I was firing rifles on my uncle's farm when I was a kid, I served 23 years in the military, was a range safety officer at my last command, own several weapons, keep my firearms in a locked safe, excluding the one I carry on my person (concealed weapons permit) and...have absolutely no intention of shooting anyone, unless my life, or that of someone else is in serious danger of being lost by a criminal.  Just because we aren't young, doesn't mean we aren't safety conscious or not familiar with firearms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't what he was saying.  He was saying that he doesn't want to see people like yourself left defenseless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The individual posting this topic made it clear that to purchase a weapon, one would have to register it and be a member of an acceptable militia.  Elderly wouldn't be accepted into any militia, so anyone that is elderly would be banned from gun ownership.  I disagree with gun registration and would never agree to such a change in the Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The loudest proponents to having NO registration I know are from 3 people here.  All Hardcore Republicans.  Sounds good but they can't vote nor own weapons.  One is a convicted armed robber and the other two were convicted as Pedophiles.
> These 3 aren't the sharpest bulbs in the box.  With gun checks like we have here, they can't legally (and aren't smart enough to buy illegally) any weapons and rely on others to get the weapons for them.  Of course, all of us know their backgrounds and won't buy them weapons.  You see, if they get a weapon from us and commit a crime, we will be found as guilty as they will be.
> 
> Yet, they can go out of state to a gun show and purchase the weapons by lying about it to vendors that don't know them.  But, as I stated, they ain't the cream of the gene pool.
> 
> All Obama has done is aligned the Feds with what many of the states laws.  If anyone that purchases a weapon must pass a background check them the stupid criminals won't be armed with a gun.
> 
> Convicted Felons don't have rights but they won't tell you that they can't buy it unless they are dumber than a box of rocks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hunt, let me guess, you're one of the pedophiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What on earth are you talking about?  I hope you realize it is against the rules to accuse other members of committing crimes???
> 
> Try to address the issues please.  When you personally attack other posters, it shows that you have lost the argument, not to mention any credibility.
Click to expand...

ChrisL, as I recall he/she called people on the post as hard core Republicans (very likely in some cases), pedophiles and three shown on his post (my user name shown), as losers.  It was insulting in and of itself.  The last I checked, I do not believe a career in the military and a second career serving terminally-ill veterans and their families, as being a loser life.
It was serving my country.  I consider him/her to be trash deserving of no respect.
Considering his/her attitude regarding military members/veterans as losers, he/she was bitter toward the military for either being rejected by it or, being discharged with an Administrative, Undesirable, or Dishonorable Discharge and thus hates us for it.  So, if he can insult, I can insult.


----------



## ChrisL

MDiver said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MDiver said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MDiver said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't what he was saying.  He was saying that he doesn't want to see people like yourself left defenseless.
> 
> 
> 
> The individual posting this topic made it clear that to purchase a weapon, one would have to register it and be a member of an acceptable militia.  Elderly wouldn't be accepted into any militia, so anyone that is elderly would be banned from gun ownership.  I disagree with gun registration and would never agree to such a change in the Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The loudest proponents to having NO registration I know are from 3 people here.  All Hardcore Republicans.  Sounds good but they can't vote nor own weapons.  One is a convicted armed robber and the other two were convicted as Pedophiles.
> These 3 aren't the sharpest bulbs in the box.  With gun checks like we have here, they can't legally (and aren't smart enough to buy illegally) any weapons and rely on others to get the weapons for them.  Of course, all of us know their backgrounds and won't buy them weapons.  You see, if they get a weapon from us and commit a crime, we will be found as guilty as they will be.
> 
> Yet, they can go out of state to a gun show and purchase the weapons by lying about it to vendors that don't know them.  But, as I stated, they ain't the cream of the gene pool.
> 
> All Obama has done is aligned the Feds with what many of the states laws.  If anyone that purchases a weapon must pass a background check them the stupid criminals won't be armed with a gun.
> 
> Convicted Felons don't have rights but they won't tell you that they can't buy it unless they are dumber than a box of rocks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hunt, let me guess, you're one of the pedophiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What on earth are you talking about?  I hope you realize it is against the rules to accuse other members of committing crimes???
> 
> Try to address the issues please.  When you personally attack other posters, it shows that you have lost the argument, not to mention any credibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ChrisL, as I recall he/she called people on the post as hard core Republicans (very likely in some cases), pedophiles and three shown on his post (my user name shown), as losers.  It was insulting in and of itself.  The last I checked, I do not believe a career in the military and a second career serving terminally-ill veterans and their families, as being a loser life.
> It was serving my country.  I consider him/her to be trash deserving of no respect.
> Considering his/her attitude regarding military members/veterans as losers, he/she was bitter toward the military for either being rejected by it or, being discharged with an Administrative, Undesirable, or Dishonorable Discharge and thus hates us for it.  So, if he can insult, I can insult.
Click to expand...


You can call people "hard core republicans" and "losers."  What you cannot do is accuse people of committing crimes.  It doesn't accomplish anything anyways.  It doesn't make your point, and it doesn't make you sound as if you know what you're talking about.  It makes your credibility very weak to say the least when you go around accusing people of things that are not true.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

jillian said:


> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.
> 
> What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you're actually incorrect. until scale's Heller decision, 200 plus years of justices KNEW the 2nd applied to a well-regulated militia and laughed out loud at even the idea that the 2nd provided a personal right of gun ownership.
> 
> that said, even Heller acknowledged that reasonable regulation is appropriate and it is only a "total ban" which is not.
> 
> the right forgets that part and actually are intentionally hostile to it. (which is laughable since it's the law... but well... that's never stopped them).
Click to expand...

*
and laughed out loud at even the idea that the 2nd provided a personal right of gun ownership.
*
Exactly! That's why it says the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Wait, what?
Never mind. LOL!


----------



## 12icer

Yep introductory, and main. What is a free state? Is it the personal STATE of being FREE, or is it a State as defined as a Sovereign Country, or is it a Separate and free Sovereign Parrish or division of a conglomerate of STATES that are part of a country or alliance that is  Free of oppression by the controlling entity. Or is it as in a Communist State the all powerful central STATE all controlling entity of Government. Define all please, and cross with English Comps defining rules for separation of clauses of Unequal standing.


----------



## Chuz Life

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.
> 
> What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?



If I am reading it correctly, your post assumes that the right that we (the people) have to keep and bear arms is limited to the right to form militias and the right to participate in militias.

The second Amendment is only one aspect of the people's overall right to keep and bear arms. We (the people) had guns and used them frequently for well over a hundred years before the 2nd Amendment was even written.

The right to keep and bear arms for self protection, hunting, etc. was a GIVEN at the time the 2nd Amendment was written.

Think about this question: "Who gave the founders the right to take up arms against the King (George) and his tyranny?"

The "people" gave themselves that right in the Declaration of Independence. Didn't they?

What do you think the founders (and the people) would have said to the King at that time if the King insisted that the people "register" all their weapons with him and his government?

Our history surrounding the revolutionary war pretty much gives us the answer to that.


----------



## hunarcy

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.
> 
> What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you're actually incorrect. until scale's Heller decision, 200 plus years of justices KNEW the 2nd applied to a well-regulated militia and laughed out loud at even the idea that the 2nd provided a personal right of gun ownership.
> 
> that said, even Heller acknowledged that reasonable regulation is appropriate and it is only a "total ban" which is not.
> 
> the right forgets that part and actually are intentionally hostile to it. (which is laughable since it's the law... but well... that's never stopped them).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> and laughed out loud at even the idea that the 2nd provided a personal right of gun ownership.
> *
> Exactly! That's why it says the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Wait, what?
> Never mind. LOL!
Click to expand...


Of course, the right is not the right of the militia.  It's the right of the PEOPLE, but those who would control us try to create some imaginary limit that really doesn't exist.


----------



## oldsoul

hunarcy said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.
> 
> What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you're actually incorrect. until scale's Heller decision, 200 plus years of justices KNEW the 2nd applied to a well-regulated militia and laughed out loud at even the idea that the 2nd provided a personal right of gun ownership.
> 
> that said, even Heller acknowledged that reasonable regulation is appropriate and it is only a "total ban" which is not.
> 
> the right forgets that part and actually are intentionally hostile to it. (which is laughable since it's the law... but well... that's never stopped them).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> and laughed out loud at even the idea that the 2nd provided a personal right of gun ownership.
> *
> Exactly! That's why it says the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Wait, what?
> Never mind. LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course, the right is not the right of the militia.  It's the right of the PEOPLE, but those who would control us try to create some imaginary limit that really doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

I wonder what part of "...shall not be infringed." is unclear. What is INFRINGEMENT? definition of INFRINGEMENT (Black's Law Dictionary):

*What is INFRINGEMENT?*
A breaking into; a trespass or encroachment upon; *a violation of a law*, regulation, contract, *or right*. Used especially of invasions of the rights secured by patents, copyrights, and trademarks. Goodyear Shoe Machinery Co. v. Jackson, 112 Fed. 140, 50 C. C. A. 159, 55 L. R. A. 092; Thomson-Houston Electric Co. v. Ohio Brass Co., 80 Fed. 721, 20 C. C. A. 107.
(Bold added.)


----------



## emilynghiem

hunarcy said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.
> 
> What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you're actually incorrect. until scale's Heller decision, 200 plus years of justices KNEW the 2nd applied to a well-regulated militia and laughed out loud at even the idea that the 2nd provided a personal right of gun ownership.
> 
> that said, even Heller acknowledged that reasonable regulation is appropriate and it is only a "total ban" which is not.
> 
> the right forgets that part and actually are intentionally hostile to it. (which is laughable since it's the law... but well... that's never stopped them).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> and laughed out loud at even the idea that the 2nd provided a personal right of gun ownership.
> *
> Exactly! That's why it says the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Wait, what?
> Never mind. LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course, the right is not the right of the militia.  It's the right of the PEOPLE, but those who would control us try to create some imaginary limit that really doesn't exist.
Click to expand...


The LIMIT is not coming from some "imagined militia"
but there is a NATURAL check on rights, where you don't have the right to ABUSE
defense to threaten violence and commit crimes.  With rights come responsibilities.
This is unwritten also, just a natural law.
so the same laws of human nature and democratic governance in collective society
that respect people's right to bear arms to DEFEND the laws
also check against abuses, because the laws include the right of people
to be SECURE and to have DUE PROCESS before depriving anyone of liberties.

What makes robbery, rape, theft, etc. crimes is that they violate the consent of others
and rob people of their equal rights and freedoms. 

So there is a natural limit on freedom; by natural laws
people cannot violate the same laws they are defending or invoking
or else they get rejected as hypocrites.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965

No. Didn't even read it. I will not comprimise my fundamental right as a US citizen to keep and bear arms.


----------



## jon_berzerk

hunarcy said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.
> 
> What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you're actually incorrect. until scale's Heller decision, 200 plus years of justices KNEW the 2nd applied to a well-regulated militia and laughed out loud at even the idea that the 2nd provided a personal right of gun ownership.
> 
> that said, even Heller acknowledged that reasonable regulation is appropriate and it is only a "total ban" which is not.
> 
> the right forgets that part and actually are intentionally hostile to it. (which is laughable since it's the law... but well... that's never stopped them).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> and laughed out loud at even the idea that the 2nd provided a personal right of gun ownership.
> *
> Exactly! That's why it says the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Wait, what?
> Never mind. LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course, the right is not the right of the militia.  It's the right of the PEOPLE, but those who would control us try to create some imaginary limit that really doesn't exist.
Click to expand...



obviously it is the right of the people 

folks had personal firearms LONG before the Constitution was written 

or the militia mentioned in the Constitution existed


----------



## hunarcy

emilynghiem said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.
> 
> What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you're actually incorrect. until scale's Heller decision, 200 plus years of justices KNEW the 2nd applied to a well-regulated militia and laughed out loud at even the idea that the 2nd provided a personal right of gun ownership.
> 
> that said, even Heller acknowledged that reasonable regulation is appropriate and it is only a "total ban" which is not.
> 
> the right forgets that part and actually are intentionally hostile to it. (which is laughable since it's the law... but well... that's never stopped them).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> and laughed out loud at even the idea that the 2nd provided a personal right of gun ownership.
> *
> Exactly! That's why it says the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Wait, what?
> Never mind. LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course, the right is not the right of the militia.  It's the right of the PEOPLE, but those who would control us try to create some imaginary limit that really doesn't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The LIMIT is not coming from some "imagined militia"
> but there is a NATURAL check on rights, where you don't have the right to ABUSE
> defense to threaten violence and commit crimes.  With rights come responsibilities.
> This is unwritten also, just a natural law.
> so the same laws of human nature and democratic governance in collective society
> that respect people's right to bear arms to DEFEND the laws
> also check against abuses, because the laws include the right of people
> to be SECURE and to have DUE PROCESS before depriving anyone of liberties.
> 
> What makes robbery, rape, theft, etc. crimes is that they violate the consent of others
> and rob people of their equal rights and freedoms.
> 
> So there is a natural limit on freedom; by natural laws
> people cannot violate the same laws they are defending or invoking
> or else they get rejected as hypocrites.
Click to expand...


You are off on a tangent.  At no point did I advocate abusing defense to threaten violence and commit crimes.  But, it's the committing of the crime that is to be controlled, not the tools they used to commit the crime.


----------



## oldsoul

I wonder what part of "...shall not be infringed." is unclear. What is INFRINGEMENT? definition of INFRINGEMENT (Black's Law Dictionary):

*What is INFRINGEMENT?*
A breaking into; a trespass or encroachment upon; *a violation of a law*, regulation, contract, *or right*. Used especially of invasions of the rights secured by patents, copyrights, and trademarks. Goodyear Shoe Machinery Co. v. Jackson, 112 Fed. 140, 50 C. C. A. 159, 55 L. R. A. 092; Thomson-Houston Electric Co. v. Ohio Brass Co., 80 Fed. 721, 20 C. C. A. 107.
(Bold added)
I am still wondering... Can anyone explain this to me. I really do not understand what is unclear about "...shall not be infringed." Seems pretty clear to me.


----------



## KokomoJojo

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. *To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force.* What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.
> 
> What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?



registering arms with the state makes the state a party to and you now share the control of the arms with the state.

siwwy wabbits twix are 4 kids


----------



## Daryl Hunt

KokomoJojo said:


> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. *To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force.* What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.
> 
> What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> registering arms with the state makes the state a party to and you now share the control of the arms with the state.
> 
> siwwy wabbits twix are 4 kids
Click to expand...


The 2nd amendment was written applying to the Federal Government.  Please stop beating this dead horse.


----------



## KokomoJojo

Daryl Hunt said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. *To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force.* What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.
> 
> What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> registering arms with the state makes the state a party to and you now share the control of the arms with the state.
> 
> siwwy wabbits twix are 4 kids
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 2nd amendment was written applying to the Federal Government.  Please stop beating this dead horse.
Click to expand...



How does your post have anything to do with mine?


----------



## Daryl Hunt

KokomoJojo said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. *To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force.* What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.
> 
> What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> registering arms with the state makes the state a party to and you now share the control of the arms with the state.
> 
> siwwy wabbits twix are 4 kids
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 2nd amendment was written applying to the Federal Government.  Please stop beating this dead horse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How does your post have anything to do with mine?
Click to expand...


The 2nd amendment was written to limit the Federal Powers.  You will notice that there is no mention of what a State can do.  But this was also written during the time that the maximum size of the Federal Free Standing Army (including Navy, Army and Marines) was maxed at 75,000.  It stayed that way until the Civil War where both sides exceeded those numbers.  After the war, it went back to 75,000 max.  During that time period, there wasn't a single army in the world that could take on 75,000 fighters.  Also, up until 1917, the National Guard was not considered part of Federal doles and could not be used by the Feds without express permission for the States Governors.  The National Guard was State Guards and operate at the pleasures of the Governors and not the President.  In 1917, the National Guard was transfered to a federal asset in the time of emergency if the President calls them up.  Today, a State Guard Member cannot be called up as long as they don't have a Federal Military obligation.  When I retired from the Air Force, I could have joined the State Guard but I also carried a 10 year obligation as a Ready Reservist.  There are very few States with a States guard and those are the ones that would be considered Well Regulated Military and the second amendment would protect them.

It's not about a single citizen.  It's about protecting the States from the Federal Government.  It also appears that the States need to revisit this.  There is nothing wrong with the 2nd amendment but we have to look at the intent of it.  And that was to protect the State from the Feds.


----------



## KokomoJojo

Daryl Hunt said:


> It's not about a single citizen.  It's about protecting the States from the Federal Government



ah so in your opinion amendments are limited to one single intended purpose per amendment is that it?


----------



## Chuz Life

Daryl Hunt said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. *To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force.* What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.
> 
> What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> registering arms with the state makes the state a party to and you now share the control of the arms with the state.
> 
> siwwy wabbits twix are 4 kids
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 2nd amendment was written applying to the Federal Government.  Please stop beating this dead horse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How does your post have anything to do with mine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 2nd amendment was written to limit the Federal Powers.  You will notice that there is no mention of what a State can do.  But this was also written during the time that the maximum size of the Federal Free Standing Army (including Navy, Army and Marines) was maxed at 75,000.  It stayed that way until the Civil War where both sides exceeded those numbers.  After the war, it went back to 75,000 max.  During that time period, there wasn't a single army in the world that could take on 75,000 fighters.  Also, up until 1917, the National Guard was not considered part of Federal doles and could not be used by the Feds without express permission for the States Governors.  The National Guard was State Guards and operate at the pleasures of the Governors and not the President.  In 1917, the National Guard was transfered to a federal asset in the time of emergency if the President calls them up.  Today, a State Guard Member cannot be called up as long as they don't have a Federal Military obligation.  When I retired from the Air Force, I could have joined the State Guard but I also carried a 10 year obligation as a Ready Reservist.  There are very few States with a States guard and those are the ones that would be considered Well Regulated Military and the second amendment would protect them.
> 
> It's not about a single citizen.  It's about protecting the States from the Federal Government.  It also appears that the States need to revisit this.  There is nothing wrong with the 2nd amendment but we have to look at the intent of it.  And that was to protect the State from the Feds.
Click to expand...


The right of the people to keep and bear arms does not come from the Constitution. The right to keep and bear arms was in full swing for more than one hundred years before the Constitution was even written.


----------



## KokomoJojo

Chuz Life said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> 
> The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. *To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force.* What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.
> 
> What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> registering arms with the state makes the state a party to and you now share the control of the arms with the state.
> 
> siwwy wabbits twix are 4 kids
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 2nd amendment was written applying to the Federal Government.  Please stop beating this dead horse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How does your post have anything to do with mine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 2nd amendment was written to limit the Federal Powers.  You will notice that there is no mention of what a State can do.  But this was also written during the time that the maximum size of the Federal Free Standing Army (including Navy, Army and Marines) was maxed at 75,000.  It stayed that way until the Civil War where both sides exceeded those numbers.  After the war, it went back to 75,000 max.  During that time period, there wasn't a single army in the world that could take on 75,000 fighters.  Also, up until 1917, the National Guard was not considered part of Federal doles and could not be used by the Feds without express permission for the States Governors.  The National Guard was State Guards and operate at the pleasures of the Governors and not the President.  In 1917, the National Guard was transfered to a federal asset in the time of emergency if the President calls them up.  Today, a State Guard Member cannot be called up as long as they don't have a Federal Military obligation.  When I retired from the Air Force, I could have joined the State Guard but I also carried a 10 year obligation as a Ready Reservist.  There are very few States with a States guard and those are the ones that would be considered Well Regulated Military and the second amendment would protect them.
> 
> It's not about a single citizen.  It's about protecting the States from the Federal Government.  It also appears that the States need to revisit this.  There is nothing wrong with the 2nd amendment but we have to look at the intent of it.  And that was to protect the State from the Feds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right of the people to keep and bear arms does not come from the Constitution. The right to keep and bear arms was in full swing for more than one hundred years before the Constitution was even written.
Click to expand...


yeh you are talking about the british bill of rights that the glorious ones copy pasted that we worship on high LOL 

Good to see some people have historical knowledge, most of what I see out here is laughable.

The right to keep and bear arms goes back much further than militia duty as these modern day agenda driven propagandists would talk about.

enjoy 

The antiquity of the right is so great that it is all but impossible to document its actual beginning. It is fairly clear that its origin lay in the customs of Germanic tribes, under which arms bearing was a right and a duty of free men; in fact,* the ceremony for giving freedom to a slave required that the former slave be presented with the armament of a free man*.[4] He then acquired the duty to serve in an equivalent of a citizen army. These customs were brought into England by the earliest Saxons. The first mention of the citizen army, or the "fyrd" is found in documents dating to 690 A.D., but scholars have concluded that the duty to serve in such with personal armament "is older than our oldest records." (Not knowing of the earlier records, 18th century legal historians including the great Blackstone attributed the origin of the English system to Alfred the Great, who ruled in the late 9th century A.D.)[5]


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Wow, how most have forgotten Civics or never learned it in the first place.

Until 1868, the Constitution was only applied to the federal government.  The first 10 amendments were written to preserve the states powers over the Federals.  

Now, let's take a good look at the applicable line in the Bill of Rights.
*subjects who are Protestants may bear arms for their defense as permitted by law;*
One has to remember, in 1689, the King was Protestant and the state sponsored Government was also Protestant.  This has more to do with the separation of Church and State than what was adopted in the Constitution for Amendment 2.  All a King had to do was to claim you weren't a proper Protestant and he could take your arms, and any other restrictions that he deems necessary.  All proper Protestant Churches were sanctioned by the King.

Then the newly formed Confederation (later called United States of America) adopted the US version.  
*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*

In United States v. Cruikshank (1875), the Court ruled that "[t]he right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government."
In _United States v. Miller_ (1939), the Court ruled that the amendment "[protects arms that had a] reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"
In _District of Columbia v. Heller_ (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment "codified a pre-existing right" and that it "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" but also stated that "the right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose"
In _McDonald v. Chicago_ (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.

So you can easily see that today's definition  is quite different than the Bill of Rights or even the Constitution.  The powers that many claim came from alter Supreme Court decisions.  

Judge Blackstone who, more or less, wrote the lawbooks that are used today said
*a public allowance under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression*
This does not mean you can carry any type of gun down the street without regardless of your intention or it's purpose.  This does not mean you can have a M-60 setup in your front yard.  All of these means that you have to be within the current law and reason.  And it can't come from the Federal but must come from the State.  Each State has the right to limit weapons in Non Military hands.  Most do already.  Is this another case where the Constitution only applies when it is someone else?   At least the English had the balls to clearly put that into the original Bill of Rights.


----------



## KokomoJojo

Daryl Hunt said:


> Wow, how most have forgotten Civics or never learned it in the first place.
> 
> Until 1868, the Constitution was only applied to the federal government.  The first 10 amendments were written to preserve the states powers over the Federals.
> 
> Now, let's take a good look at the applicable line in the Bill of Rights.
> *subjects who are Protestants may bear arms for their defense as permitted by law;*
> One has to remember, in 1689, the King was Protestant and the state sponsored Government was also Protestant.  This has more to do with the separation of Church and State than what was adopted in the Constitution for Amendment 2.  All a King had to do was to claim you weren't a proper Protestant and he could take your arms, and any other restrictions that he deems necessary.  All proper Protestant Churches were sanctioned by the King.
> 
> Then the newly formed Confederation (later called United States of America) adopted the US version.
> *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*
> 
> In United States v. Cruikshank (1875), the Court ruled that "[t]he right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government."
> In _United States v. Miller_ (1939), the Court ruled that the amendment "[protects arms that had a] reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"
> In _District of Columbia v. Heller_ (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment "codified a pre-existing right" and that it "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" but also stated that "the right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose"
> In _McDonald v. Chicago_ (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.
> 
> So you can easily see that today's definition  is quite different than the Bill of Rights or even the Constitution.  The powers that many claim came from alter Supreme Court decisions.
> 
> Judge Blackstone who, more or less, wrote the lawbooks that are used today said
> *a public allowance under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression*
> This does not mean you can carry any type of gun down the street without regardless of your intention or it's purpose.  This does not mean you can have a M-60 setup in your front yard.  All of these means that you have to be within the current law and reason.  And it can't come from the Federal but must come from the State.  Each State has the right to limit weapons in Non Military hands.  Most do already.  Is this another case where the Constitution only applies when it is someone else?   At least the English had the balls to clearly put that into the original Bill of Rights.




Nope, sorry there is no back door that allows any other source of bullshit to infringe upon this brain.

If you agree with that, then you believe the *state* has a right to trial by jury for an infamous crime? 


*Fifth Amendment: An Overview*
The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides, "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; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."


Oh and the best one of all, *The state has the right to exercise its religion?*

I mean bro, anyone who would say those things are operating on hypno auto pilot and not using their heads sorry.


*Amendment I*
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or * prohibiting the free exercise thereof*; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition.  It forbids Congress from both promoting one religion over others and also restricting an *individual’s* religious practices.  It guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely.  It also guarantees the right of citizens to assemble peaceably and to petition their government.



*So you think a state can be held for murder charges or exercise its own religion?  Seriously?*

Who was the asshole that opined that again?  most likely marshall or story.

Its all a house of cards, multi-layered corruption!

Everyone needs to read through the sales hype and see the substance.  The constitution 'guarantees' NOTHING!  

The rights are 'reserved' NOT guaranteed which means set out or set aside or do not pass go, outside their jurisdiction!


----------



## KokomoJojo

Read what was written 'IN' context:

"Until 1868, the Constitution *was only applied* to the federal government."

Doesnt mean its application was *proper*, if it was there would be no 14th which is another legislative abortion.




> *This does not mean you can carry any type of gun down the street without regardless of your intention or it's purpose.* This does not mean you can have a M-60 setup in your front yard. *All of these means that you have to be within the current law and reason. * And it can't come from the Federal but must come from the State. *Each State has the right to limit weapons in Non Military hands.* Most do already. Is this another case where the Constitution only applies when it is someone else? At least the English had the balls to clearly put that into the original Bill of Rights.



It sure does mean that!

How do you plan on determining 'anyones intention' *without a trial*?

Last time I checked the constitution is current law and reason.  oh you mean court '*opinions*'?


Oh yeh the states create a federal constitution in *express agreement to the reserved rights of the people* then when they get home they simply say just kidding!  We were just fooling around when we signed that contract

So you post history then ignore it to push a militia only agenda when one of its central purposes is to go to war against the government if necessary to protect the rights of the individuals of this nation from despotism and tryanny?

So you expect then that the government is going to order the militia to attack the government to clean out government corruption?  Seriously?

You dont see how ridiculous that position is?


----------



## Daryl Hunt

KokomoJojo said:


> Read what was written 'IN' context:
> 
> "Until 1868, the Constitution *was only applied* to the federal government."
> 
> Doesnt mean its application was *proper*, if it was there would be no 14th which is another legislative abortion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *This does not mean you can carry any type of gun down the street without regardless of your intention or it's purpose.* This does not mean you can have a M-60 setup in your front yard. *All of these means that you have to be within the current law and reason. * And it can't come from the Federal but must come from the State. *Each State has the right to limit weapons in Non Military hands.* Most do already. Is this another case where the Constitution only applies when it is someone else? At least the English had the balls to clearly put that into the original Bill of Rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It sure does mean that!
> 
> How do you plan on determining 'anyones intention' *without a trial*?
> 
> Last time I checked the constitution is current law and reason.  oh you mean court '*opinions*'?
> 
> 
> Oh yeh the states create a federal constitution in *express agreement to the reserved rights of the people* then when they get home they simply say just kidding!  We were just fooling around when we signed that contract
> 
> So you post history then ignore it to push a militia only agenda when one of its central purposes is to go to war against the government if necessary to protect the rights of the individuals of this nation from despotism and tryanny?
> 
> So you expect then that the government is going to order the militia to attack the government to clean out government corruption?  Seriously?
> 
> You dont see how ridiculous that position is?
Click to expand...


Our Founding Fathers knew that things would change as time went on.  So they created a living, fluid document.  They made it hard to change it.  And to unchange it.  When some things were needing to be fluid, they used ambiguous language.  When it was quite clear that no changes were going to be needed or it dealt with basic rights of existance, they were quite specific.  

What bothers me is, the ones that scream the loudest about how they are the "Patriots" are also the first to leave out parts that disagree with their own views.  I am a constitutionalist.  Afraid I left the GOP because it no longer believed any of this.  There are three types of Republicans.  The Lincoln/Eisenhower, the Reagonites,  and the Dick Chaneys.  Most of us Lincoln types have left the party since it has been hijacked.  And it pisses me off to no end to hear a DC type claim to be from the Lincoln side.  Maybe we need a new party called Lincoln.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

KokomoJojo said:


> Read what was written 'IN' context:
> 
> "Until 1868, the Constitution *was only applied* to the federal government."
> 
> Doesnt mean its application was *proper*, if it was there would be no 14th which is another legislative abortion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *This does not mean you can carry any type of gun down the street without regardless of your intention or it's purpose.* This does not mean you can have a M-60 setup in your front yard. *All of these means that you have to be within the current law and reason. * And it can't come from the Federal but must come from the State. *Each State has the right to limit weapons in Non Military hands.* Most do already. Is this another case where the Constitution only applies when it is someone else? At least the English had the balls to clearly put that into the original Bill of Rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It sure does mean that!
> 
> How do you plan on determining 'anyones intention' *without a trial*?
> 
> Last time I checked the constitution is current law and reason.  oh you mean court '*opinions*'?
> 
> 
> Oh yeh the states create a federal constitution in *express agreement to the reserved rights of the people* then when they get home they simply say just kidding!  We were just fooling around when we signed that contract
> 
> So you post history then ignore it to push a militia only agenda when one of its central purposes is to go to war against the government if necessary to protect the rights of the individuals of this nation from despotism and tryanny?
> 
> So you expect then that the government is going to order the militia to attack the government to clean out government corruption?  Seriously?
> 
> You dont see how ridiculous that position is?
Click to expand...


As corrupt as the Feds are, the states and locals are dripping with corruption.  You clean it up from the ground up.


----------



## KokomoJojo

Daryl Hunt said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read what was written 'IN' context:
> 
> "Until 1868, the Constitution *was only applied* to the federal government."
> 
> Doesnt mean its application was *proper*, if it was there would be no 14th which is another legislative abortion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *This does not mean you can carry any type of gun down the street without regardless of your intention or it's purpose.* This does not mean you can have a M-60 setup in your front yard. *All of these means that you have to be within the current law and reason. * And it can't come from the Federal but must come from the State. *Each State has the right to limit weapons in Non Military hands.* Most do already. Is this another case where the Constitution only applies when it is someone else? At least the English had the balls to clearly put that into the original Bill of Rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It sure does mean that!
> 
> How do you plan on determining 'anyones intention' *without a trial*?
> 
> Last time I checked the constitution is current law and reason.  oh you mean court '*opinions*'?
> 
> 
> Oh yeh the states create a federal constitution in *express agreement to the reserved rights of the people* then when they get home they simply say just kidding!  We were just fooling around when we signed that contract
> 
> So you post history then ignore it to push a militia only agenda when one of its central purposes is to go to war against the government if necessary to protect the rights of the individuals of this nation from despotism and tryanny?
> 
> So you expect then that the government is going to order the militia to attack the government to clean out government corruption?  Seriously?
> 
> You dont see how ridiculous that position is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our Founding Fathers knew that things would change as time went on.  So they created a living, fluid document.  They made it hard to change it.  And to unchange it.  When some things were needing to be fluid, they used ambiguous language.  When it was quite clear that no changes were going to be needed or it dealt with basic rights of existance, they were quite specific.
> 
> What bothers me is, the ones that scream the loudest about how they are the "Patriots" are also the first to leave out parts that disagree with their own views.  I am a constitutionalist.  Afraid I left the GOP because it no longer believed any of this.  There are three types of Republicans.  The Lincoln/Eisenhower, the Reagonites,  and the Dick Chaneys.  Most of us Lincoln types have left the party since it has been hijacked.  And it pisses me off to no end to hear a DC type claim to be from the Lincoln side.  Maybe we need a new party called Lincoln.
Click to expand...


If by living fluid document you mean that it can be changed by first leveling the rocky mountain range then yeh its living and fluid.  It nonetheless is written in the negative and reserves stipulates to the reservation of our rights in the lowest common denominator which is not likely to change.  If that is what you meant we agree.

One thing they absolutely cannot do is reduce our reserved rights legitimately, for it is not up to them to do so.  The only way they can accomplish that is through the courts and the constant nibbling away around the edges as they have been doing over the course of many years.

Not really, the system if you take a close look was designed to be near anarchy in its intent.  By that I am talking about near statuteless and everything dealt with case by case in the courts.  Statutes more often than not predjudice one party over another and the state grossly uses that to their advantage. 

If you want a real eyeopener, pay close attention to this: The 'states' own the '*soil*' in this country.  The corporation restructured, (creating the 'united states', under the 'united states of america', which was a restructuring of the united 'colonies' of america under the king).  What is known in britain as Estates in america were abbreviated to 'states', but carries the same meaning. 

Pay particular attention to the law respecting 'soil' rights versus 'land' rights and then compare those in pre-revolutionary britain and the king then to now, but be prepared to pick your tummy off the floor.


----------



## Chuz Life

Daryl Hunt said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read what was written 'IN' context:
> 
> "Until 1868, the Constitution *was only applied* to the federal government."
> 
> Doesnt mean its application was *proper*, if it was there would be no 14th which is another legislative abortion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *This does not mean you can carry any type of gun down the street without regardless of your intention or it's purpose.* This does not mean you can have a M-60 setup in your front yard. *All of these means that you have to be within the current law and reason. * And it can't come from the Federal but must come from the State. *Each State has the right to limit weapons in Non Military hands.* Most do already. Is this another case where the Constitution only applies when it is someone else? At least the English had the balls to clearly put that into the original Bill of Rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It sure does mean that!
> 
> How do you plan on determining 'anyones intention' *without a trial*?
> 
> Last time I checked the constitution is current law and reason.  oh you mean court '*opinions*'?
> 
> 
> Oh yeh the states create a federal constitution in *express agreement to the reserved rights of the people* then when they get home they simply say just kidding!  We were just fooling around when we signed that contract
> 
> So you post history then ignore it to push a militia only agenda when one of its central purposes is to go to war against the government if necessary to protect the rights of the individuals of this nation from despotism and tryanny?
> 
> So you expect then that the government is going to order the militia to attack the government to clean out government corruption?  Seriously?
> 
> You dont see how ridiculous that position is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our Founding Fathers knew that things would change as time went on.  So they created a living, fluid document.  They made it hard to change it.  And to unchange it.  When some things were needing to be fluid, they used ambiguous language.  When it was quite clear that no changes were going to be needed or it dealt with basic rights of existance, they were quite specific.
> 
> What bothers me is, the ones that scream the loudest about how they are the "Patriots" are also the first to leave out parts that disagree with their own views.  I am a constitutionalist.  Afraid I left the GOP because it no longer believed any of this.  There are three types of Republicans.  The Lincoln/Eisenhower, the Reagonites,  and the Dick Chaneys.  Most of us Lincoln types have left the party since it has been hijacked.  And it pisses me off to no end to hear a DC type claim to be from the Lincoln side.  Maybe we need a new party called Lincoln.
Click to expand...


When the revolutionary war began, our founding fathers/ patriots "took up arms" against the tyrannical King. 

This was 13 Years before the U.S. Constitution was written. 

My questions for you are very simple. 

1. Where did the "people" get their right to have those guns, 13 years BEFORE the Constitution was written? 

2. Where did the founders get the right from - to form a militia and to use those arms in defense of their own freedoms and against the king and his tyranny?


----------



## KokomoJojo

Chuz Life said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read what was written 'IN' context:
> 
> "Until 1868, the Constitution *was only applied* to the federal government."
> 
> Doesnt mean its application was *proper*, if it was there would be no 14th which is another legislative abortion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *This does not mean you can carry any type of gun down the street without regardless of your intention or it's purpose.* This does not mean you can have a M-60 setup in your front yard. *All of these means that you have to be within the current law and reason. * And it can't come from the Federal but must come from the State. *Each State has the right to limit weapons in Non Military hands.* Most do already. Is this another case where the Constitution only applies when it is someone else? At least the English had the balls to clearly put that into the original Bill of Rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It sure does mean that!
> 
> How do you plan on determining 'anyones intention' *without a trial*?
> 
> Last time I checked the constitution is current law and reason.  oh you mean court '*opinions*'?
> 
> 
> Oh yeh the states create a federal constitution in *express agreement to the reserved rights of the people* then when they get home they simply say just kidding!  We were just fooling around when we signed that contract
> 
> So you post history then ignore it to push a militia only agenda when one of its central purposes is to go to war against the government if necessary to protect the rights of the individuals of this nation from despotism and tryanny?
> 
> So you expect then that the government is going to order the militia to attack the government to clean out government corruption?  Seriously?
> 
> You dont see how ridiculous that position is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our Founding Fathers knew that things would change as time went on.  So they created a living, fluid document.  They made it hard to change it.  And to unchange it.  When some things were needing to be fluid, they used ambiguous language.  When it was quite clear that no changes were going to be needed or it dealt with basic rights of existance, they were quite specific.
> 
> What bothers me is, the ones that scream the loudest about how they are the "Patriots" are also the first to leave out parts that disagree with their own views.  I am a constitutionalist.  Afraid I left the GOP because it no longer believed any of this.  There are three types of Republicans.  The Lincoln/Eisenhower, the Reagonites,  and the Dick Chaneys.  Most of us Lincoln types have left the party since it has been hijacked.  And it pisses me off to no end to hear a DC type claim to be from the Lincoln side.  Maybe we need a new party called Lincoln.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When the revolutionary war began, our founding fathers/ patriots "took up arms" against the tyrannical King.
> 
> This was 13 Years before the U.S. Constitution was written.
> 
> My questions for you are very simple.
> 
> 1. Where did the "people" get their right to have those guns, 13 years BEFORE the Constitution was written?
> 
> 2. Where did the founders get the right from - to form a militia and to use those arms in defense of their own freedoms and against the king and his tyranny?
Click to expand...



ok there better be a big prize in this for me! LOL

that would be article 6 of the AoC and prior the 1689 bill of rights and prior to that alfred the great.

The people then took for granted that only slaves and prisoners of state were not allowed to freely bear arms.


----------



## Chuz Life

KokomoJojo said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read what was written 'IN' context:
> 
> "Until 1868, the Constitution *was only applied* to the federal government."
> 
> Doesnt mean its application was *proper*, if it was there would be no 14th which is another legislative abortion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *This does not mean you can carry any type of gun down the street without regardless of your intention or it's purpose.* This does not mean you can have a M-60 setup in your front yard. *All of these means that you have to be within the current law and reason. * And it can't come from the Federal but must come from the State. *Each State has the right to limit weapons in Non Military hands.* Most do already. Is this another case where the Constitution only applies when it is someone else? At least the English had the balls to clearly put that into the original Bill of Rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It sure does mean that!
> 
> How do you plan on determining 'anyones intention' *without a trial*?
> 
> Last time I checked the constitution is current law and reason.  oh you mean court '*opinions*'?
> 
> 
> Oh yeh the states create a federal constitution in *express agreement to the reserved rights of the people* then when they get home they simply say just kidding!  We were just fooling around when we signed that contract
> 
> So you post history then ignore it to push a militia only agenda when one of its central purposes is to go to war against the government if necessary to protect the rights of the individuals of this nation from despotism and tryanny?
> 
> So you expect then that the government is going to order the militia to attack the government to clean out government corruption?  Seriously?
> 
> You dont see how ridiculous that position is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our Founding Fathers knew that things would change as time went on.  So they created a living, fluid document.  They made it hard to change it.  And to unchange it.  When some things were needing to be fluid, they used ambiguous language.  When it was quite clear that no changes were going to be needed or it dealt with basic rights of existance, they were quite specific.
> 
> What bothers me is, the ones that scream the loudest about how they are the "Patriots" are also the first to leave out parts that disagree with their own views.  I am a constitutionalist.  Afraid I left the GOP because it no longer believed any of this.  There are three types of Republicans.  The Lincoln/Eisenhower, the Reagonites,  and the Dick Chaneys.  Most of us Lincoln types have left the party since it has been hijacked.  And it pisses me off to no end to hear a DC type claim to be from the Lincoln side.  Maybe we need a new party called Lincoln.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When the revolutionary war began, our founding fathers/ patriots "took up arms" against the tyrannical King.
> 
> This was 13 Years before the U.S. Constitution was written.
> 
> My questions for you are very simple.
> 
> 1. Where did the "people" get their right to have those guns, 13 years BEFORE the Constitution was written?
> 
> 2. Where did the founders get the right from - to form a militia and to use those arms in defense of their own freedoms and against the king and his tyranny?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ok there better be a big prize in this for me! LOL
> 
> that would be article 6 of the AoC and prior the 1689 bill of rights and prior to that alfred the great.
> 
> The people then took for granted that only slaves and prisoners of state were not allowed to freely bear arms.
Click to expand...


Your answer is above and beyond what I was actually looking for. It's hard enough just to get a gunbrabber to admit that people had guns and a right to have them even before the 2nd Amendment was written.


----------



## Centinel

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.
> 
> What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?



The federal government is one of limited, specific, and enumerated powers. (Listed in Art I, section 8). Similarly to Madison, I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of enacting such a requirement.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Daryl Hunt said:


> The 2nd amendment was written to limit the Federal Powers.  You will notice that there is no mention of what a State can do.


See:   Amendment 14



> It's not about a single citizen.  It's about protecting the States from the Federal Government.


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.


----------

