Do you notice how LW never admit their real goal is to overturn the 2nd amendment?

[radical right]

The people is a collective.

What are "fellow citizens" or "peaceable citizens" collective or individual?

Collective

Duh !!!

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

Again "the people" is a collective. Such as the militias of the states.

But, peaceable citizens? What does that mean? Collective? Why even say peaceable citizens if it's a collective?

 

[radical right]

Why even say peaceable citizens if it's a collective?

It removes criminals from that collective right.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

And, you have completely ignored this:

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
- Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

Their PRIVATE arms. Surely, you are not suggesting that "private" arms means state owned or collectively owned, do you?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

It removes criminals from that collective right.

So, then what is the difference between "collective" right and the "individual" right, in your opinion?

You are saying that the collective shall have the right, but some individuals will be excluded from the right, which, in and of itself DEMANDS that the right be held individually.

PRIVATE ownership means????

 

[radical right]

And, you have completely ignored this:

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
- Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

Their PRIVATE arms. Surely, you are not suggesting that "private" arms means state owned or collectively owned, do you?

Read the Militia act, it required every able bodied male to keep and have available a musket, powder and ammunition. As members of the "militia"

 

[radical right]

PRIVATE ownership means????

The militia act was the first government mandate that able bodied men buy something, like health insurance, But in that case is was a musket.

Militia Acts of 1792 - Wikipedia

 

[francoHFW]

Why don't they follow the processes of the government and get 2/3 of Congress and 75% of states to overturn the 2nd amendment?

It's because they know it won't happen...so they will continually try to erode it with continuing to reduce our rights.

Trying to have background checks for everyone but family members and even doing away with handguns, is not trying to do away with the 2nd Amendment.we need Hunters to kill all these damn deer. But carry on with your ridiculous brainwashed bs, hater dupe.

doing away with handguns.

but we're not doing away with the 2nd amendment...

i needed that laugh.

That was the way it was for many years and many states people survived it... At the moment we're so far away from that it's ridiculous so remain calm. I'm just saying... Had guns are useless in a war or Revolt or whatever you jackasses are going on about... Handguns are not the basis of our country, laws are... Fear mongered brainwashed functional morons...

 

[radical right]

Militia Acts of 1792 - Wikipedia

Militia members, referred to as "every citizen, so enrolled and notified", "...shall within six months thereafter, provide himself..." with a musket,bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, ¼ pound of gunpowder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack

 

[radical right]

Militia Acts of 1792 - Wikipedia

The second Act, passed May 8, 1792, provided for the organization of the state militias. It conscriptedevery "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Read the Militia act, it required every able bodied male to keep and have available a musket, powder and ammunition. As members of the "militia"

How does that help your argument? That is simply a law requiring men to own a firearm. That FURTHERS the individual right argument.

An INDIVIDUAL owned a firearm. The State didn't own it and pass it out when the shooting was about to begin.

So, did the individual buy the damn gun, or did the State? Who owned the gun?

 

[francoHFW]

Why don't they follow the processes of the government and get 2/3 of Congress and 75% of states to overturn the 2nd amendment?

It's because they know it won't happen...so they will continually try to erode it with continuing to reduce our rights.

Trying to have background checks for everyone but family members and even doing away with handguns, is not trying to do away with the 2nd Amendment.we need Hunters to kill all these damn deer. But carry on with your ridiculous brainwashed bs, hater dupe.

You are the one who is deluded.

The ultimate aim of the Left is to ban all guns. Either that, or they are fucking stupid beyond belief.

You see, the Left is always renting their clothes and weeping over the bodies of gun homicide victims.

Well, there is one way, and one way only, to effectively reduce gun homicides. Waiting times won't do it. Banning "assault weapons" won't do it. Banning bump stocks won't do it.

Those are all shams.

The only way to effectively reduce gun homicides is to ban guns entirely and confiscate the ones that are out there. And the only way to do that is to repeal the Second Amendment.

And if you were paying attention, you would see the Left is always point to the examples of countries like Australia which had mandatory confiscation!

So the only one brainwashed in this picture is you. The ultimate aim of the Left is to repeal the Second Amendment and confiscate our guns.

They had Matt dettori confiscation of assault weapons... No one is talking about ending the Second Amendment nobody has anything about hunting rifles and shotguns even the most radical... And guns are only good for one thing, killing people.

 

[BluesLegend]

Militia Acts of 1792 - Wikipedia

The second Act, passed May 8, 1792, provided for the organization of the state militias. It conscriptedevery "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company.

Private citizens in the late 1700's owned many really nasty weapons, the more deadly the better is what they thought in those times. Few if any are legal today.

 

[radical right]

Read the Militia act, it required every able bodied male to keep and have available a musket, powder and ammunition. As members of the "militia"

How does that help your argument? That is simply a law requiring men to own a firearm. That FURTHERS the individual right argument.

Read it again, it required members of the militia to provide their own guns. And it conscripted white males 18-45 into the militias.

 

[BluesLegend]

Why don't they follow the processes of the government and get 2/3 of Congress and 75% of states to overturn the 2nd amendment?

It's because they know it won't happen...so they will continually try to erode it with continuing to reduce our rights.

Trying to have background checks for everyone but family members and even doing away with handguns, is not trying to do away with the 2nd Amendment.we need Hunters to kill all these damn deer. But carry on with your ridiculous brainwashed bs, hater dupe.

You are the one who is deluded.

The ultimate aim of the Left is to ban all guns. Either that, or they are fucking stupid beyond belief.

You see, the Left is always renting their clothes and weeping over the bodies of gun homicide victims.

Well, there is one way, and one way only, to effectively reduce gun homicides. Waiting times won't do it. Banning "assault weapons" won't do it. Banning bump stocks won't do it.

Those are all shams.

The only way to effectively reduce gun homicides is to ban guns entirely and confiscate the ones that are out there. And the only way to do that is to repeal the Second Amendment.

And if you were paying attention, you would see the Left is always point to the examples of countries like Australia which had mandatory confiscation!

So the only one brainwashed in this picture is you. The ultimate aim of the Left is to repeal the Second Amendment and confiscate our guns.

They had Matt dettori confiscation of assault weapons... No one is talking about ending the Second Amendment nobody has anything about hunting rifles and shotguns even the most radical... And guns are only good for one thing, killing people.

shoot an Alaska brown bear with your hunting rifle, it will just piss it off.

 

[miketx]

Notice he said "citizens", actually "peaceable citizens" having a right to guns, not "the people"

Wait. I thought "the people" was collective. So, now you agree that it is an individual right?

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

Again "the people" is a collective. Such as the militias of the states.

Again, you lie.

 

[ColonelAngus]

I don't like licorice.....so I don't want anyone in the USA to be able to buy licorice, Dr. Pepper, Mr. Pibb, Dr. Publix, and Root Beer.

 

[radical right]

An INDIVIDUAL owned a firearm. The State didn't own it and pass it out when the shooting was about to begin.

So, did the individual buy the damn gun, or did the State? Who owned the gun?

It was a mandated purchase. The government forced men 18-45 to buy something.

Just like Obamacare.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

In the 1790s, individuals were required to purchase and own fireams. Founders said over and over again that the right of the people or citizens of the private ownership of their OWN guns. but no individual has the right. Only the "people" who are not individuals...or something....

That's sound reasoning right there...

 

[radical right]

Private citizens in the late 1700's owned many really nasty weapons, the more deadly the better is what they thought in those times. Few if any are legal today.

Strangely the NFA and GCA makes every weapon from the 1700's legal to own.