Do you notice how RWs never establish a line on their 2nd amendment rights?

[Auld Phart]

All of those guns are owned by only 20% of the people. You people are nuts.

I can assure you that like most gun owners if I received a call from someone conducting a poll asking me if I owned any guns and what kind, I would immediately say NO.

WASHINGTON (CBSDC/AP) – A recent Gallup Poll found that 60 percent of Americans own guns in order to feel safe.
October 29, 2013 12:40 PM

When the research group asked a random sampling of 309 gun-owning American adults as to the reasons for owning one, the vast majority cited a desire to protect themselves.

After that, 36 percent said they owned them for hunting, while 13 percent use them for recreation. Only 5 percent cited the Second Amendment as motivation, despite its frequent use as a talking point on the issue.

Gallup: 60 Percent Of Americans Own Guns For 'Personal Safety'

That's the stated reason that 60% of GUN OWNERS gave as to why they own a gun. That's not 60% of the population, dope.

That's the stated reason that 60% of GUN OWNERS gave as to why they own a gun.

you do realize that makes no sense.

were they only calling gun owners?

How are they sure that response came from gun owners?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

All of those guns are owned by only 20% of the people. You people are nuts.

I can assure you that like most gun owners if I received a call from someone conducting a poll asking me if I owned any guns and what kind, I would immediately say NO.

WASHINGTON (CBSDC/AP) – A recent Gallup Poll found that 60 percent of Americans own guns in order to feel safe.
October 29, 2013 12:40 PM

When the research group asked a random sampling of 309 gun-owning American adults as to the reasons for owning one, the vast majority cited a desire to protect themselves.

After that, 36 percent said they owned them for hunting, while 13 percent use them for recreation. Only 5 percent cited the Second Amendment as motivation, despite its frequent use as a talking point on the issue.

Gallup: 60 Percent Of Americans Own Guns For 'Personal Safety'

That's the stated reason that 60% of GUN OWNERS gave as to why they own a gun. That's not 60% of the population, dope.

That's the stated reason that 60% of GUN OWNERS gave as to why they own a gun.

you do realize that makes no sense.

were they only calling gun owners?

How are they sure that response came from gun owners?

Really?
Non gun owners would answer questions as to why they chose to own guns?

It's obviously a survey of gun owners.

 

[Auld Phart]

All of those guns are owned by only 20% of the people. You people are nuts.

I can assure you that like most gun owners if I received a call from someone conducting a poll asking me if I owned any guns and what kind, I would immediately say NO.

WASHINGTON (CBSDC/AP) – A recent Gallup Poll found that 60 percent of Americans own guns in order to feel safe.
October 29, 2013 12:40 PM

When the research group asked a random sampling of 309 gun-owning American adults as to the reasons for owning one, the vast majority cited a desire to protect themselves.

After that, 36 percent said they owned them for hunting, while 13 percent use them for recreation. Only 5 percent cited the Second Amendment as motivation, despite its frequent use as a talking point on the issue.

Gallup: 60 Percent Of Americans Own Guns For 'Personal Safety'

That's the stated reason that 60% of GUN OWNERS gave as to why they own a gun. That's not 60% of the population, dope.

That's the stated reason that 60% of GUN OWNERS gave as to why they own a gun.

you do realize that makes no sense.

were they only calling gun owners?

How are they sure that response came from gun owners?

Really?
Non gun owners would answer questions as to why they chose to own guns?

It's obviously a survey of gun owners.

Still not making sense.

how would they know they were gun owners?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

All of those guns are owned by only 20% of the people. You people are nuts.

I can assure you that like most gun owners if I received a call from someone conducting a poll asking me if I owned any guns and what kind, I would immediately say NO.

WASHINGTON (CBSDC/AP) – A recent Gallup Poll found that 60 percent of Americans own guns in order to feel safe.
October 29, 2013 12:40 PM

When the research group asked a random sampling of 309 gun-owning American adults as to the reasons for owning one, the vast majority cited a desire to protect themselves.

After that, 36 percent said they owned them for hunting, while 13 percent use them for recreation. Only 5 percent cited the Second Amendment as motivation, despite its frequent use as a talking point on the issue.

Gallup: 60 Percent Of Americans Own Guns For 'Personal Safety'

That's the stated reason that 60% of GUN OWNERS gave as to why they own a gun. That's not 60% of the population, dope.

That's the stated reason that 60% of GUN OWNERS gave as to why they own a gun.

you do realize that makes no sense.

were they only calling gun owners?

How are they sure that response came from gun owners?

Really?
Non gun owners would answer questions as to why they chose to own guns?

It's obviously a survey of gun owners.

Still not making sense.

how would they know they were gun owners?

Damn, dude.

Gallup: 60 Percent Of Americans Own Guns For 'Personal Safety'

"When the research group asked a random sampling of 309 gun-owning American adults as to the reasons for owning one, the vast majority cited a desire to protect themselves."

 

[Auld Phart]

I can assure you that like most gun owners if I received a call from someone conducting a poll asking me if I owned any guns and what kind, I would immediately say NO.

WASHINGTON (CBSDC/AP) – A recent Gallup Poll found that 60 percent of Americans own guns in order to feel safe.
October 29, 2013 12:40 PM

When the research group asked a random sampling of 309 gun-owning American adults as to the reasons for owning one, the vast majority cited a desire to protect themselves.

After that, 36 percent said they owned them for hunting, while 13 percent use them for recreation. Only 5 percent cited the Second Amendment as motivation, despite its frequent use as a talking point on the issue.

Gallup: 60 Percent Of Americans Own Guns For 'Personal Safety'

That's the stated reason that 60% of GUN OWNERS gave as to why they own a gun. That's not 60% of the population, dope.

That's the stated reason that 60% of GUN OWNERS gave as to why they own a gun.

you do realize that makes no sense.

were they only calling gun owners?

How are they sure that response came from gun owners?

Really?
Non gun owners would answer questions as to why they chose to own guns?

It's obviously a survey of gun owners.

Still not making sense.

how would they know they were gun owners?

Damn, dude.

Gallup: 60 Percent Of Americans Own Guns For 'Personal Safety'

"When the research group asked a random sampling of 309 gun-owning American adults as to the reasons for owning one, the vast majority cited a desire to protect themselves."

My bad

I got conversations mixed up somewhere back there

 

[frigidweirdo]

And do you know what it means? I bet you don't.

tell us, oh wise one, what does it mean?

Well the main issue here is about the term "right to bear arms" which means the right to be in the militia.

I can prove it all too, however I've been blown off so many times by people like you even when they're faced with so much evidence, it's ridiculous.

Well the main issue here is about the term "right to bear arms" which means the right to be in the militia.

Odd, isn't it?

That they gave the right to the people, and not just the militia?

No, it's not odd.

The problem with the whole 2A thing is that the right have distorted the 2A to mean what they want it to mean, and ignoring hundreds of years of history in the process. The left are fighting back against the right and then distorting the 2A to mean what they want it to mean.

So you have an argument of two lots of people who have no fucking clue what they're talking about, and anyone that does know gets ignored and told to fuck off repeatedly.

Don't you love partisan politics?

Wouldn't it make more sent to have proportional representation so there'd be more political parties, more voices, more choice and less bullshit?

and you, alone, know the real meaning?

The reasoning behind the 2nd is: "which means the right to be in the militia."

At the time the 2nd was written, to be in the militia, one must be male, between the ages of 16-45, (57 in one or more areas).

Is it your claim that women are not allowed to own firearms, nor can males under the age of 16, nor over the age of 45?

No, not me alone.

But then I see you don't read well. I didn't say the reasoning behind the 2A is "which means the right to be in the militia." I said the Right to Bear Arms means the right to be in the militia.

Okay, I'll show you. It's quite simple really.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

In 1789 the House (Senate records were kept a secret, unfortunately) Mr Gerry had quite a few things to say about a proposed Amendment to the US Constitution. The latter part of this proposed Amendment said:

"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

So, this proposal basically wanted to say that some people didn't have to bear arms if their religion said that this was wrong.

Simple logic here says that the founding fathers would not go around protecting the right of people to walk around carrying guns in an amendment that was about the militia.

They protected the right to keep arms so the militia would have a ready supply of arms that wasn't controlled by the government. Why would you protect the right of people to walk around with guns? No, you protect the right of people to be in the militia so the govt can't take that away.

Anyway, back to the document.

Mr Gerry said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."

Well, Mr Gerry seems to think that they're talking about MILITIA DUTY. That actually he's used "bear arms" and "militia duty" as synonyms. Why would he does this if bear arms didn't mean "militia duty"?

Mr Jackson said:

"Now this, in his opinion, was unjust, unless the constitution secured an equivalent: for this reason he moved to amend the clause, by inserting at the end of it, "upon paying an equivalent, to be established by law.""

So basically Mr Jackson either wanted people who didn't partake in militia duty to pay an equivalent, or he wanted people who didn't carry guns around with them in the streets to pay an equivalent. Which is most likely in an amendment about the militia?

"Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

So, Mr Jackson used "bear arms" synonymously with "render military service".

So, in this text we have "bear arms" being used by the Founding Fathers in a document that would become the Second Amendment and all the time they used the term to mean "render military service" and "militia duty" and not once did they use it to mean something not connected with the militia.

There's a lot more evidence where this came from. There's NO EVIDENCE, nothing at all, that suggests that "bear arms" means to walk around with guns, there's no evidence or logic as to why the Founding Fathers would protect something like walking around with guns in an amendment about th militia.

 

[Auld Phart]

tell us, oh wise one, what does it mean?

Well the main issue here is about the term "right to bear arms" which means the right to be in the militia.

I can prove it all too, however I've been blown off so many times by people like you even when they're faced with so much evidence, it's ridiculous.

Well the main issue here is about the term "right to bear arms" which means the right to be in the militia.

Odd, isn't it?

That they gave the right to the people, and not just the militia?

No, it's not odd.

The problem with the whole 2A thing is that the right have distorted the 2A to mean what they want it to mean, and ignoring hundreds of years of history in the process. The left are fighting back against the right and then distorting the 2A to mean what they want it to mean.

So you have an argument of two lots of people who have no fucking clue what they're talking about, and anyone that does know gets ignored and told to fuck off repeatedly.

Don't you love partisan politics?

Wouldn't it make more sent to have proportional representation so there'd be more political parties, more voices, more choice and less bullshit?

and you, alone, know the real meaning?

The reasoning behind the 2nd is: "which means the right to be in the militia."

At the time the 2nd was written, to be in the militia, one must be male, between the ages of 16-45, (57 in one or more areas).

Is it your claim that women are not allowed to own firearms, nor can males under the age of 16, nor over the age of 45?

No, not me alone.

But then I see you don't read well. I didn't say the reasoning behind the 2A is "which means the right to be in the militia." I said the Right to Bear Arms means the right to be in the militia.

Okay, I'll show you. It's quite simple really.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

In 1789 the House (Senate records were kept a secret, unfortunately) Mr Gerry had quite a few things to say about a proposed Amendment to the US Constitution. The latter part of this proposed Amendment said:

"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

So, this proposal basically wanted to say that some people didn't have to bear arms if their religion said that this was wrong.

Simple logic here says that the founding fathers would not go around protecting the right of people to walk around carrying guns in an amendment that was about the militia.

They protected the right to keep arms so the militia would have a ready supply of arms that wasn't controlled by the government. Why would you protect the right of people to walk around with guns? No, you protect the right of people to be in the militia so the govt can't take that away.

Anyway, back to the document.

Mr Gerry said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."

Well, Mr Gerry seems to think that they're talking about MILITIA DUTY. That actually he's used "bear arms" and "militia duty" as synonyms. Why would he does this if bear arms didn't mean "militia duty"?

Mr Jackson said:

"Now this, in his opinion, was unjust, unless the constitution secured an equivalent: for this reason he moved to amend the clause, by inserting at the end of it, "upon paying an equivalent, to be established by law.""

So basically Mr Jackson either wanted people who didn't partake in militia duty to pay an equivalent, or he wanted people who didn't carry guns around with them in the streets to pay an equivalent. Which is most likely in an amendment about the militia?

"Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

So, Mr Jackson used "bear arms" synonymously with "render military service".

So, in this text we have "bear arms" being used by the Founding Fathers in a document that would become the Second Amendment and all the time they used the term to mean "render military service" and "militia duty" and not once did they use it to mean something not connected with the militia.

There's a lot more evidence where this came from. There's NO EVIDENCE, nothing at all, that suggests that "bear arms" means to walk around with guns, there's no evidence or logic as to why the Founding Fathers would protect something like walking around with guns in an amendment about th militia.

That's nice

But what ended up in the Bill of Rights?

the right OF THE PEOPLE to KEEP and bear arms.

The word KEEP is a killer in your 'argument'.

I said the Right to Bear Arms means the right to be in the militia.

NO

because, as I ready stated, males under the age of 16, over the age of 45, and all females were exempt from being in the militia.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well the main issue here is about the term "right to bear arms" which means the right to be in the militia.

I can prove it all too, however I've been blown off so many times by people like you even when they're faced with so much evidence, it's ridiculous.

Well the main issue here is about the term "right to bear arms" which means the right to be in the militia.

Odd, isn't it?

That they gave the right to the people, and not just the militia?

No, it's not odd.

The problem with the whole 2A thing is that the right have distorted the 2A to mean what they want it to mean, and ignoring hundreds of years of history in the process. The left are fighting back against the right and then distorting the 2A to mean what they want it to mean.

So you have an argument of two lots of people who have no fucking clue what they're talking about, and anyone that does know gets ignored and told to fuck off repeatedly.

Don't you love partisan politics?

Wouldn't it make more sent to have proportional representation so there'd be more political parties, more voices, more choice and less bullshit?

and you, alone, know the real meaning?

The reasoning behind the 2nd is: "which means the right to be in the militia."

At the time the 2nd was written, to be in the militia, one must be male, between the ages of 16-45, (57 in one or more areas).

Is it your claim that women are not allowed to own firearms, nor can males under the age of 16, nor over the age of 45?

No, not me alone.

But then I see you don't read well. I didn't say the reasoning behind the 2A is "which means the right to be in the militia." I said the Right to Bear Arms means the right to be in the militia.

Okay, I'll show you. It's quite simple really.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

In 1789 the House (Senate records were kept a secret, unfortunately) Mr Gerry had quite a few things to say about a proposed Amendment to the US Constitution. The latter part of this proposed Amendment said:

"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

So, this proposal basically wanted to say that some people didn't have to bear arms if their religion said that this was wrong.

Simple logic here says that the founding fathers would not go around protecting the right of people to walk around carrying guns in an amendment that was about the militia.

They protected the right to keep arms so the militia would have a ready supply of arms that wasn't controlled by the government. Why would you protect the right of people to walk around with guns? No, you protect the right of people to be in the militia so the govt can't take that away.

Anyway, back to the document.

Mr Gerry said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."

Well, Mr Gerry seems to think that they're talking about MILITIA DUTY. That actually he's used "bear arms" and "militia duty" as synonyms. Why would he does this if bear arms didn't mean "militia duty"?

Mr Jackson said:

"Now this, in his opinion, was unjust, unless the constitution secured an equivalent: for this reason he moved to amend the clause, by inserting at the end of it, "upon paying an equivalent, to be established by law.""

So basically Mr Jackson either wanted people who didn't partake in militia duty to pay an equivalent, or he wanted people who didn't carry guns around with them in the streets to pay an equivalent. Which is most likely in an amendment about the militia?

"Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

So, Mr Jackson used "bear arms" synonymously with "render military service".

So, in this text we have "bear arms" being used by the Founding Fathers in a document that would become the Second Amendment and all the time they used the term to mean "render military service" and "militia duty" and not once did they use it to mean something not connected with the militia.

There's a lot more evidence where this came from. There's NO EVIDENCE, nothing at all, that suggests that "bear arms" means to walk around with guns, there's no evidence or logic as to why the Founding Fathers would protect something like walking around with guns in an amendment about th militia.

That's nice

But what ended up in the Bill of Rights?

the right OF THE PEOPLE to KEEP and bear arms.

The word KEEP is a killer in your 'argument'.

I said the Right to Bear Arms means the right to be in the militia.

NO

because, as I ready stated, males under the age of 16, over the age of 45, and all females were exempt from being in the militia.

See, I told you. Everyone comes along, sees the evidence, realizes they can't fight back and say things like "that's nice".

The reality is the Founding Fathers saw "bear arms" as "render military service" yet the right today see it as "walking around with a gun", and yet they don't seem to notice that carry and conceal permits would be unnecessary if there were a right to carry arms around.

No, keep isn't the killer of my argument at all. You're clearly not reading.

I forgot about the last point. I was going to talk about the Dick Act.

The Dick Act made the unorganized militia. The reason they made the unorganized militia is because they realized the militia was useless for fighting wars. They wanted to have the National Guard be a more professional militia unit. However individuals had the right to be in the militia. So they could demand to be in the National Guard, making it less professional. So they made the "unorganized militia" to basically say "look, you're in the militia" to people, so they couldn't demand to be in the National Guard.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well the main issue here is about the term "right to bear arms" which means the right to be in the militia.

I can prove it all too, however I've been blown off so many times by people like you even when they're faced with so much evidence, it's ridiculous.

Well the main issue here is about the term "right to bear arms" which means the right to be in the militia.

Odd, isn't it?

That they gave the right to the people, and not just the militia?

No, it's not odd.

The problem with the whole 2A thing is that the right have distorted the 2A to mean what they want it to mean, and ignoring hundreds of years of history in the process. The left are fighting back against the right and then distorting the 2A to mean what they want it to mean.

So you have an argument of two lots of people who have no fucking clue what they're talking about, and anyone that does know gets ignored and told to fuck off repeatedly.

Don't you love partisan politics?

Wouldn't it make more sent to have proportional representation so there'd be more political parties, more voices, more choice and less bullshit?

and you, alone, know the real meaning?

The reasoning behind the 2nd is: "which means the right to be in the militia."

At the time the 2nd was written, to be in the militia, one must be male, between the ages of 16-45, (57 in one or more areas).

Is it your claim that women are not allowed to own firearms, nor can males under the age of 16, nor over the age of 45?

No, not me alone.

But then I see you don't read well. I didn't say the reasoning behind the 2A is "which means the right to be in the militia." I said the Right to Bear Arms means the right to be in the militia.

Okay, I'll show you. It's quite simple really.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

In 1789 the House (Senate records were kept a secret, unfortunately) Mr Gerry had quite a few things to say about a proposed Amendment to the US Constitution. The latter part of this proposed Amendment said:

"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

So, this proposal basically wanted to say that some people didn't have to bear arms if their religion said that this was wrong.

Simple logic here says that the founding fathers would not go around protecting the right of people to walk around carrying guns in an amendment that was about the militia.

They protected the right to keep arms so the militia would have a ready supply of arms that wasn't controlled by the government. Why would you protect the right of people to walk around with guns? No, you protect the right of people to be in the militia so the govt can't take that away.

Anyway, back to the document.

Mr Gerry said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."

Well, Mr Gerry seems to think that they're talking about MILITIA DUTY. That actually he's used "bear arms" and "militia duty" as synonyms. Why would he does this if bear arms didn't mean "militia duty"?

Mr Jackson said:

"Now this, in his opinion, was unjust, unless the constitution secured an equivalent: for this reason he moved to amend the clause, by inserting at the end of it, "upon paying an equivalent, to be established by law.""

So basically Mr Jackson either wanted people who didn't partake in militia duty to pay an equivalent, or he wanted people who didn't carry guns around with them in the streets to pay an equivalent. Which is most likely in an amendment about the militia?

"Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

So, Mr Jackson used "bear arms" synonymously with "render military service".

So, in this text we have "bear arms" being used by the Founding Fathers in a document that would become the Second Amendment and all the time they used the term to mean "render military service" and "militia duty" and not once did they use it to mean something not connected with the militia.

There's a lot more evidence where this came from. There's NO EVIDENCE, nothing at all, that suggests that "bear arms" means to walk around with guns, there's no evidence or logic as to why the Founding Fathers would protect something like walking around with guns in an amendment about th militia.

That's nice

But what ended up in the Bill of Rights?

the right OF THE PEOPLE to KEEP and bear arms.

The word KEEP is a killer in your 'argument'.

I said the Right to Bear Arms means the right to be in the militia.

NO

because, as I ready stated, males under the age of 16, over the age of 45, and all females were exempt from being in the militia.

And if you're going to be a dick and use the funny button for posts because you can't use words to express your thoughts, then I'm not going to bother with you.

Children can press the funny button. I'm not here to be around children.

 

[Auld Phart]

Odd, isn't it?

That they gave the right to the people, and not just the militia?

No, it's not odd.

The problem with the whole 2A thing is that the right have distorted the 2A to mean what they want it to mean, and ignoring hundreds of years of history in the process. The left are fighting back against the right and then distorting the 2A to mean what they want it to mean.

So you have an argument of two lots of people who have no fucking clue what they're talking about, and anyone that does know gets ignored and told to fuck off repeatedly.

Don't you love partisan politics?

Wouldn't it make more sent to have proportional representation so there'd be more political parties, more voices, more choice and less bullshit?

and you, alone, know the real meaning?

The reasoning behind the 2nd is: "which means the right to be in the militia."

At the time the 2nd was written, to be in the militia, one must be male, between the ages of 16-45, (57 in one or more areas).

Is it your claim that women are not allowed to own firearms, nor can males under the age of 16, nor over the age of 45?

No, not me alone.

But then I see you don't read well. I didn't say the reasoning behind the 2A is "which means the right to be in the militia." I said the Right to Bear Arms means the right to be in the militia.

Okay, I'll show you. It's quite simple really.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

In 1789 the House (Senate records were kept a secret, unfortunately) Mr Gerry had quite a few things to say about a proposed Amendment to the US Constitution. The latter part of this proposed Amendment said:

"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

So, this proposal basically wanted to say that some people didn't have to bear arms if their religion said that this was wrong.

Simple logic here says that the founding fathers would not go around protecting the right of people to walk around carrying guns in an amendment that was about the militia.

They protected the right to keep arms so the militia would have a ready supply of arms that wasn't controlled by the government. Why would you protect the right of people to walk around with guns? No, you protect the right of people to be in the militia so the govt can't take that away.

Anyway, back to the document.

Mr Gerry said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."

Well, Mr Gerry seems to think that they're talking about MILITIA DUTY. That actually he's used "bear arms" and "militia duty" as synonyms. Why would he does this if bear arms didn't mean "militia duty"?

Mr Jackson said:

"Now this, in his opinion, was unjust, unless the constitution secured an equivalent: for this reason he moved to amend the clause, by inserting at the end of it, "upon paying an equivalent, to be established by law.""

So basically Mr Jackson either wanted people who didn't partake in militia duty to pay an equivalent, or he wanted people who didn't carry guns around with them in the streets to pay an equivalent. Which is most likely in an amendment about the militia?

"Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

So, Mr Jackson used "bear arms" synonymously with "render military service".

So, in this text we have "bear arms" being used by the Founding Fathers in a document that would become the Second Amendment and all the time they used the term to mean "render military service" and "militia duty" and not once did they use it to mean something not connected with the militia.

There's a lot more evidence where this came from. There's NO EVIDENCE, nothing at all, that suggests that "bear arms" means to walk around with guns, there's no evidence or logic as to why the Founding Fathers would protect something like walking around with guns in an amendment about th militia.

That's nice

But what ended up in the Bill of Rights?

the right OF THE PEOPLE to KEEP and bear arms.

The word KEEP is a killer in your 'argument'.

I said the Right to Bear Arms means the right to be in the militia.

NO

because, as I ready stated, males under the age of 16, over the age of 45, and all females were exempt from being in the militia.

See, I told you. Everyone comes along, sees the evidence, realizes they can't fight back and say things like "that's nice".

The reality is the Founding Fathers saw "bear arms" as "render military service" yet the right today see it as "walking around with a gun", and yet they don't seem to notice that carry and conceal permits would be unnecessary if there were a right to carry arms around.

No, keep isn't the killer of my argument at all. You're clearly not reading.

I forgot about the last point. I was going to talk about the Dick Act.

The Dick Act made the unorganized militia. The reason they made the unorganized militia is because they realized the militia was useless for fighting wars. They wanted to have the National Guard be a more professional militia unit. However individuals had the right to be in the militia. So they could demand to be in the National Guard, making it less professional. So they made the "unorganized militia" to basically say "look, you're in the militia" to people, so they couldn't demand to be in the National Guard.

You come up with, 'this guys input on the 2nd was...' and 'hat guys input on the 2nd was...'

what was actually put in the 2nd?

the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Not just the militia, not just males between the ages of 16-45...

THE PEOPLE.

The same as any bill in congress, a lot of conversation about what should be put in...

but everyone doesn't get what they want.

You can post the comments and thoughts of 100 people on what they wanted in the 2nd, and only one thing matters...

"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."

 

[Auld Phart]

Odd, isn't it?

That they gave the right to the people, and not just the militia?

No, it's not odd.

The problem with the whole 2A thing is that the right have distorted the 2A to mean what they want it to mean, and ignoring hundreds of years of history in the process. The left are fighting back against the right and then distorting the 2A to mean what they want it to mean.

So you have an argument of two lots of people who have no fucking clue what they're talking about, and anyone that does know gets ignored and told to fuck off repeatedly.

Don't you love partisan politics?

Wouldn't it make more sent to have proportional representation so there'd be more political parties, more voices, more choice and less bullshit?

and you, alone, know the real meaning?

The reasoning behind the 2nd is: "which means the right to be in the militia."

At the time the 2nd was written, to be in the militia, one must be male, between the ages of 16-45, (57 in one or more areas).

Is it your claim that women are not allowed to own firearms, nor can males under the age of 16, nor over the age of 45?

No, not me alone.

But then I see you don't read well. I didn't say the reasoning behind the 2A is "which means the right to be in the militia." I said the Right to Bear Arms means the right to be in the militia.

Okay, I'll show you. It's quite simple really.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

In 1789 the House (Senate records were kept a secret, unfortunately) Mr Gerry had quite a few things to say about a proposed Amendment to the US Constitution. The latter part of this proposed Amendment said:

"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

So, this proposal basically wanted to say that some people didn't have to bear arms if their religion said that this was wrong.

Simple logic here says that the founding fathers would not go around protecting the right of people to walk around carrying guns in an amendment that was about the militia.

They protected the right to keep arms so the militia would have a ready supply of arms that wasn't controlled by the government. Why would you protect the right of people to walk around with guns? No, you protect the right of people to be in the militia so the govt can't take that away.

Anyway, back to the document.

Mr Gerry said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."

Well, Mr Gerry seems to think that they're talking about MILITIA DUTY. That actually he's used "bear arms" and "militia duty" as synonyms. Why would he does this if bear arms didn't mean "militia duty"?

Mr Jackson said:

"Now this, in his opinion, was unjust, unless the constitution secured an equivalent: for this reason he moved to amend the clause, by inserting at the end of it, "upon paying an equivalent, to be established by law.""

So basically Mr Jackson either wanted people who didn't partake in militia duty to pay an equivalent, or he wanted people who didn't carry guns around with them in the streets to pay an equivalent. Which is most likely in an amendment about the militia?

"Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

So, Mr Jackson used "bear arms" synonymously with "render military service".

So, in this text we have "bear arms" being used by the Founding Fathers in a document that would become the Second Amendment and all the time they used the term to mean "render military service" and "militia duty" and not once did they use it to mean something not connected with the militia.

There's a lot more evidence where this came from. There's NO EVIDENCE, nothing at all, that suggests that "bear arms" means to walk around with guns, there's no evidence or logic as to why the Founding Fathers would protect something like walking around with guns in an amendment about th militia.

That's nice

But what ended up in the Bill of Rights?

the right OF THE PEOPLE to KEEP and bear arms.

The word KEEP is a killer in your 'argument'.

I said the Right to Bear Arms means the right to be in the militia.

NO

because, as I ready stated, males under the age of 16, over the age of 45, and all females were exempt from being in the militia.

And if you're going to be a dick and use the funny button for posts because you can't use words to express your thoughts, then I'm not going to bother with you.

Children can press the funny button. I'm not here to be around children.

Sorry you don't like the funny button...

You should be used to it by now, considering your posts

 

[Yarddog]

I fucking hunt. I hunt. When I lived in Tennessee I fucking hunted. I'm in Canada now. I FUCKING HUNT MY FOOD.

FUCK OFF.

No one gives a shit you hunt. That isn’t what this thread is about.

She can take out more deer with a fully automatic or a claymore. She can take out a whole herd of carribou. maybe she's got a big family

 

[frigidweirdo]

No, it's not odd.

The problem with the whole 2A thing is that the right have distorted the 2A to mean what they want it to mean, and ignoring hundreds of years of history in the process. The left are fighting back against the right and then distorting the 2A to mean what they want it to mean.

So you have an argument of two lots of people who have no fucking clue what they're talking about, and anyone that does know gets ignored and told to fuck off repeatedly.

Don't you love partisan politics?

Wouldn't it make more sent to have proportional representation so there'd be more political parties, more voices, more choice and less bullshit?

and you, alone, know the real meaning?

The reasoning behind the 2nd is: "which means the right to be in the militia."

At the time the 2nd was written, to be in the militia, one must be male, between the ages of 16-45, (57 in one or more areas).

Is it your claim that women are not allowed to own firearms, nor can males under the age of 16, nor over the age of 45?

No, not me alone.

But then I see you don't read well. I didn't say the reasoning behind the 2A is "which means the right to be in the militia." I said the Right to Bear Arms means the right to be in the militia.

Okay, I'll show you. It's quite simple really.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

In 1789 the House (Senate records were kept a secret, unfortunately) Mr Gerry had quite a few things to say about a proposed Amendment to the US Constitution. The latter part of this proposed Amendment said:

"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

So, this proposal basically wanted to say that some people didn't have to bear arms if their religion said that this was wrong.

Simple logic here says that the founding fathers would not go around protecting the right of people to walk around carrying guns in an amendment that was about the militia.

They protected the right to keep arms so the militia would have a ready supply of arms that wasn't controlled by the government. Why would you protect the right of people to walk around with guns? No, you protect the right of people to be in the militia so the govt can't take that away.

Anyway, back to the document.

Mr Gerry said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."

Well, Mr Gerry seems to think that they're talking about MILITIA DUTY. That actually he's used "bear arms" and "militia duty" as synonyms. Why would he does this if bear arms didn't mean "militia duty"?

Mr Jackson said:

"Now this, in his opinion, was unjust, unless the constitution secured an equivalent: for this reason he moved to amend the clause, by inserting at the end of it, "upon paying an equivalent, to be established by law.""

So basically Mr Jackson either wanted people who didn't partake in militia duty to pay an equivalent, or he wanted people who didn't carry guns around with them in the streets to pay an equivalent. Which is most likely in an amendment about the militia?

"Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

So, Mr Jackson used "bear arms" synonymously with "render military service".

So, in this text we have "bear arms" being used by the Founding Fathers in a document that would become the Second Amendment and all the time they used the term to mean "render military service" and "militia duty" and not once did they use it to mean something not connected with the militia.

There's a lot more evidence where this came from. There's NO EVIDENCE, nothing at all, that suggests that "bear arms" means to walk around with guns, there's no evidence or logic as to why the Founding Fathers would protect something like walking around with guns in an amendment about th militia.

That's nice

But what ended up in the Bill of Rights?

the right OF THE PEOPLE to KEEP and bear arms.

The word KEEP is a killer in your 'argument'.

I said the Right to Bear Arms means the right to be in the militia.

NO

because, as I ready stated, males under the age of 16, over the age of 45, and all females were exempt from being in the militia.

And if you're going to be a dick and use the funny button for posts because you can't use words to express your thoughts, then I'm not going to bother with you.

Children can press the funny button. I'm not here to be around children.

Sorry you don't like the funny button...

You should be used to it by now, considering your posts

Tell you what, seeing as you can't have an adult conversation, I'm saying bye.

Another person who, when presented with indisputable facts, acts like a child.

Bye.

 

[Rustic]

It's okay to admit you're afraid to defend yourself, a law abiding Conservative will defend your weak position...

Go on and deflect your outrage with the law abiding Americans who own guns, one day you'll wake up out of your fantasy world or you won't, no one really cares, it will be a COLD DAY IN HELL BEFORE YOU TAKE OUR GUNS!!!

No one from the government wants to take your guns, you dipshit. You just conflate reasonable regulations of guns with over-turning the 2nd amendment completely. You do it because you’re too stupid to understand nuance I guess. No democrat in office wants to take guns from people who are mentally stable and non-felons. Get it through your skull.

What you define as reasonable, I define as intrusive, invasive, and restrictive.

Maybe you can tell us, then, why so many Democrat leaders - to include Hillary - have called for the 2nd Amendment to be repealed. (Psst ---- did you see Warren's comments just today?)

Good god. We both know you can’t find any quote from a democrat that has suggested repeal of the 2nd amendment.

I'll give you just one ---- unless, of course, you demand more.

Hillary Clinton:

“The Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment. And I am going to make that case every chance I get.”
–PRIVATE EVENT IN NEW YORK, NEW YORK, SEPTEMBER 2015

Aw heck, I'll give you another one as a free bonus:

Elizabeth Warren: “If the Republicans disarm, all is well and good. If they refuse to disarm, we shall disarm them ourselves”

You don't even have to say thank you.

Want more??? You KNOW you don't want me to go into Feinstein or Sanders' history on the 2nd Amendment.

I’m going to need proof Warren actually said that. Can you provide that? I noticed you provided no link. I’m guessing you just don’t have one.

The Hillary quote is completely non-specific. It doesn’t refer to over-turning the amendment. That mostly matters because Hillary has always been a moderate on gun control publically. Gun control was something she barely touched on during the campaign in comparison to other issues.

Firearm ownership is a personal thing just like medical information and financials.

 

[Auld Phart]

and you, alone, know the real meaning?

The reasoning behind the 2nd is: "which means the right to be in the militia."

At the time the 2nd was written, to be in the militia, one must be male, between the ages of 16-45, (57 in one or more areas).

Is it your claim that women are not allowed to own firearms, nor can males under the age of 16, nor over the age of 45?

No, not me alone.

But then I see you don't read well. I didn't say the reasoning behind the 2A is "which means the right to be in the militia." I said the Right to Bear Arms means the right to be in the militia.

Okay, I'll show you. It's quite simple really.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

In 1789 the House (Senate records were kept a secret, unfortunately) Mr Gerry had quite a few things to say about a proposed Amendment to the US Constitution. The latter part of this proposed Amendment said:

"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

So, this proposal basically wanted to say that some people didn't have to bear arms if their religion said that this was wrong.

Simple logic here says that the founding fathers would not go around protecting the right of people to walk around carrying guns in an amendment that was about the militia.

They protected the right to keep arms so the militia would have a ready supply of arms that wasn't controlled by the government. Why would you protect the right of people to walk around with guns? No, you protect the right of people to be in the militia so the govt can't take that away.

Anyway, back to the document.

Mr Gerry said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."

Well, Mr Gerry seems to think that they're talking about MILITIA DUTY. That actually he's used "bear arms" and "militia duty" as synonyms. Why would he does this if bear arms didn't mean "militia duty"?

Mr Jackson said:

"Now this, in his opinion, was unjust, unless the constitution secured an equivalent: for this reason he moved to amend the clause, by inserting at the end of it, "upon paying an equivalent, to be established by law.""

So basically Mr Jackson either wanted people who didn't partake in militia duty to pay an equivalent, or he wanted people who didn't carry guns around with them in the streets to pay an equivalent. Which is most likely in an amendment about the militia?

"Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

So, Mr Jackson used "bear arms" synonymously with "render military service".

So, in this text we have "bear arms" being used by the Founding Fathers in a document that would become the Second Amendment and all the time they used the term to mean "render military service" and "militia duty" and not once did they use it to mean something not connected with the militia.

There's a lot more evidence where this came from. There's NO EVIDENCE, nothing at all, that suggests that "bear arms" means to walk around with guns, there's no evidence or logic as to why the Founding Fathers would protect something like walking around with guns in an amendment about th militia.

That's nice

But what ended up in the Bill of Rights?

the right OF THE PEOPLE to KEEP and bear arms.

The word KEEP is a killer in your 'argument'.

I said the Right to Bear Arms means the right to be in the militia.

NO

because, as I ready stated, males under the age of 16, over the age of 45, and all females were exempt from being in the militia.

And if you're going to be a dick and use the funny button for posts because you can't use words to express your thoughts, then I'm not going to bother with you.

Children can press the funny button. I'm not here to be around children.

Sorry you don't like the funny button...

You should be used to it by now, considering your posts

Tell you what, seeing as you can't have an adult conversation, I'm saying bye.

Another person who, when presented with indisputable facts, acts like a child.

Bye.

Sorry I'm not locked into your wavelength.

(I seriously hope that few are)

but, you dont' seem to get the point.

and it's unlikely you ever will.

It doesn't matter what the arguments were in conceiving the 2nd, what matters is what was ratified.

psst, you aren't posting facts, you're posting opinions.

 

[frigidweirdo]

No, not me alone.

But then I see you don't read well. I didn't say the reasoning behind the 2A is "which means the right to be in the militia." I said the Right to Bear Arms means the right to be in the militia.

Okay, I'll show you. It's quite simple really.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

In 1789 the House (Senate records were kept a secret, unfortunately) Mr Gerry had quite a few things to say about a proposed Amendment to the US Constitution. The latter part of this proposed Amendment said:

"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

So, this proposal basically wanted to say that some people didn't have to bear arms if their religion said that this was wrong.

Simple logic here says that the founding fathers would not go around protecting the right of people to walk around carrying guns in an amendment that was about the militia.

They protected the right to keep arms so the militia would have a ready supply of arms that wasn't controlled by the government. Why would you protect the right of people to walk around with guns? No, you protect the right of people to be in the militia so the govt can't take that away.

Anyway, back to the document.

Mr Gerry said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."

Well, Mr Gerry seems to think that they're talking about MILITIA DUTY. That actually he's used "bear arms" and "militia duty" as synonyms. Why would he does this if bear arms didn't mean "militia duty"?

Mr Jackson said:

"Now this, in his opinion, was unjust, unless the constitution secured an equivalent: for this reason he moved to amend the clause, by inserting at the end of it, "upon paying an equivalent, to be established by law.""

So basically Mr Jackson either wanted people who didn't partake in militia duty to pay an equivalent, or he wanted people who didn't carry guns around with them in the streets to pay an equivalent. Which is most likely in an amendment about the militia?

"Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

So, Mr Jackson used "bear arms" synonymously with "render military service".

So, in this text we have "bear arms" being used by the Founding Fathers in a document that would become the Second Amendment and all the time they used the term to mean "render military service" and "militia duty" and not once did they use it to mean something not connected with the militia.

There's a lot more evidence where this came from. There's NO EVIDENCE, nothing at all, that suggests that "bear arms" means to walk around with guns, there's no evidence or logic as to why the Founding Fathers would protect something like walking around with guns in an amendment about th militia.

That's nice

But what ended up in the Bill of Rights?

the right OF THE PEOPLE to KEEP and bear arms.

The word KEEP is a killer in your 'argument'.

I said the Right to Bear Arms means the right to be in the militia.

NO

because, as I ready stated, males under the age of 16, over the age of 45, and all females were exempt from being in the militia.

And if you're going to be a dick and use the funny button for posts because you can't use words to express your thoughts, then I'm not going to bother with you.

Children can press the funny button. I'm not here to be around children.

Sorry you don't like the funny button...

You should be used to it by now, considering your posts

Tell you what, seeing as you can't have an adult conversation, I'm saying bye.

Another person who, when presented with indisputable facts, acts like a child.

Bye.

Sorry I'm not locked into your wavelength.

(I seriously hope that few are)

but, you dont' seem to get the point.

and it's unlikely you ever will.

It doesn't matter what the arguments were in conceiving the 2nd, what matters is what was ratified.

You don't even bother taking the time. You just jump to the funny button. You start acting like a child because you haven't bothered to take the time to understand someone.

If I wanted to talk to people like this, I'd hang around with little kids.

 

[Auld Phart]

That's nice

But what ended up in the Bill of Rights?

the right OF THE PEOPLE to KEEP and bear arms.

The word KEEP is a killer in your 'argument'.

NO

because, as I ready stated, males under the age of 16, over the age of 45, and all females were exempt from being in the militia.

And if you're going to be a dick and use the funny button for posts because you can't use words to express your thoughts, then I'm not going to bother with you.

Children can press the funny button. I'm not here to be around children.

Sorry you don't like the funny button...

You should be used to it by now, considering your posts

Tell you what, seeing as you can't have an adult conversation, I'm saying bye.

Another person who, when presented with indisputable facts, acts like a child.

Bye.

Sorry I'm not locked into your wavelength.

(I seriously hope that few are)

but, you dont' seem to get the point.

and it's unlikely you ever will.

It doesn't matter what the arguments were in conceiving the 2nd, what matters is what was ratified.

You don't even bother taking the time. You just jump to the funny button. You start acting like a child because you haven't bothered to take the time to understand someone.

If I wanted to talk to people like this, I'd hang around with little kids.

I give you a funny, because you don't seem to understand the facts.

you present the opinions of people, and ignore the fact of what the 2nd actually says.

 

[frigidweirdo]

And if you're going to be a dick and use the funny button for posts because you can't use words to express your thoughts, then I'm not going to bother with you.

Children can press the funny button. I'm not here to be around children.

Sorry you don't like the funny button...

You should be used to it by now, considering your posts

Tell you what, seeing as you can't have an adult conversation, I'm saying bye.

Another person who, when presented with indisputable facts, acts like a child.

Bye.

Sorry I'm not locked into your wavelength.

(I seriously hope that few are)

but, you dont' seem to get the point.

and it's unlikely you ever will.

It doesn't matter what the arguments were in conceiving the 2nd, what matters is what was ratified.

You don't even bother taking the time. You just jump to the funny button. You start acting like a child because you haven't bothered to take the time to understand someone.

If I wanted to talk to people like this, I'd hang around with little kids.

I give you a funny, because you don't seem to understand the facts.

you present the opinions of people, and ignore the fact of what the 2nd actually says.

Rubbish.

I'm presenting facts. You don't understand my position. You could ask me questions. But no, you just pretend you know what I'm talking about. But you have no clue. So you jump to the funny button.

You want to talk about what the 2A "actually says".

Okay, what it actually says is "right to... bear arms".

Now, bear means lots of things.

Do you have a right to the arms of bears?

Because the 2A says yes, you do.

But only a fucking stupid moron would think that the 2A protects the right to bears's arms. Right? Why?

Let's try my favorite one. Stool.

"The doctor told me to sit on the stool", did the patient sit on a piece of poo, or did the patient sit on a wooden backless seat?

"The doctor told me to give him a stool sample", did the patient go and cut off a piece of the wooden backless seat, or did they give the doctor a piece of their poo?

You know what is what based on context.

Now, just because "stool" CAN MEAN a poo, doesn't mean that it does mean poo. That would be ridiculous and it would make understand English impossible because too many words have more than one meaning.

With the 2A it's different. The language being used is from the 1700s, what is "obvious" in 2017 might not have been "obvious" in 1789.

Now, what I showed you was the Founding Fathers using the term "bear arms". Not only did I show you that when they were writing the 2A they didn't mean the arms of bears, but that they didn't mean all versions of what "bear" can mean.

Bear as a verb means

bear | Definition of bear in US English by Oxford Dictionaries

1) carry

2) support

3) Endure

4) give birth

5) Turn and proceed in a different direction

Now, you're telling me that "the right to bear arms" means the right to "carry, support, endure, give birth to and turn and proceed in a different direction of arms"

Are you serious? You gave me the funny button because you think that it's funny that because "bear" can mean carry, therefore it MUST mean carry. Are you sure it's not ME that should be give YOU the funny button? Because under this logic, you're saying that in the USA, you have the right to give birth to a gun, that you have the right to endure a gun? That you have the right to turn and proceed in a different direction.... I'm struggling where I should put gun with this one.....

And all the while you're ignoring what the Founding Father said.

Not only this you're ignoring what the Supreme Court said (which I didn't include because I've got a new computer and my documents are on my old dying computer) in Presser v. Illinois (1886).

"We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

Yes, in 1886, nearly 100 years after the 2A was written, the Supreme Court said that the 2A does NOT protect individuals to walk around with guns. Hmmm.

Then you're ignoring DC v. Heller (2008), yes, we've got to 2008, AND a Conservative court.

"(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation."

Yes, Heller basically said that the ruling in Presser is still valid. Hmmm.... why would they have done this if they thought that "bear arms" mean carry arms around?

Also, as I said, and as you IGNORED, there are carry and conceal permits. Not only are they prevalent in right wing states, but the NRA supports such permits. Now, why would you do something like this if the right to bear arms was the right to carry guns around? It makes no sense.

And yet, you pulled the funny button out of your ass for what?

You've presented NO EVIDENCE. I've presented enough to PROVE my case. And I have more.

 

[Auld Phart]

Sorry you don't like the funny button...

You should be used to it by now, considering your posts

Tell you what, seeing as you can't have an adult conversation, I'm saying bye.

Another person who, when presented with indisputable facts, acts like a child.

Bye.

Sorry I'm not locked into your wavelength.

(I seriously hope that few are)

but, you dont' seem to get the point.

and it's unlikely you ever will.

It doesn't matter what the arguments were in conceiving the 2nd, what matters is what was ratified.

You don't even bother taking the time. You just jump to the funny button. You start acting like a child because you haven't bothered to take the time to understand someone.

If I wanted to talk to people like this, I'd hang around with little kids.

I give you a funny, because you don't seem to understand the facts.

you present the opinions of people, and ignore the fact of what the 2nd actually says.

Rubbish.

I'm presenting facts. You don't understand my position. You could ask me questions. But no, you just pretend you know what I'm talking about. But you have no clue. So you jump to the funny button.

You want to talk about what the 2A "actually says".

Okay, what it actually says is "right to... bear arms".

Now, bear means lots of things.

Do you have a right to the arms of bears?

Because the 2A says yes, you do.

But only a fucking stupid moron would think that the 2A protects the right to bears's arms. Right? Why?

Let's try my favorite one. Stool.

"The doctor told me to sit on the stool", did the patient sit on a piece of poo, or did the patient sit on a wooden backless seat?

"The doctor told me to give him a stool sample", did the patient go and cut off a piece of the wooden backless seat, or did they give the doctor a piece of their poo?

You know what is what based on context.

Now, just because "stool" CAN MEAN a poo, doesn't mean that it does mean poo. That would be ridiculous and it would make understand English impossible because too many words have more than one meaning.

With the 2A it's different. The language being used is from the 1700s, what is "obvious" in 2017 might not have been "obvious" in 1789.

Now, what I showed you was the Founding Fathers using the term "bear arms". Not only did I show you that when they were writing the 2A they didn't mean the arms of bears, but that they didn't mean all versions of what "bear" can mean.

Bear as a verb means

bear | Definition of bear in US English by Oxford Dictionaries

1) carry

2) support

3) Endure

4) give birth

5) Turn and proceed in a different direction

Now, you're telling me that "the right to bear arms" means the right to "carry, support, endure, give birth to and turn and proceed in a different direction of arms"

Are you serious? You gave me the funny button because you think that it's funny that because "bear" can mean carry, therefore it MUST mean carry. Are you sure it's not ME that should be give YOU the funny button? Because under this logic, you're saying that in the USA, you have the right to give birth to a gun, that you have the right to endure a gun? That you have the right to turn and proceed in a different direction.... I'm struggling where I should put gun with this one.....

And all the while you're ignoring what the Founding Father said.

Not only this you're ignoring what the Supreme Court said (which I didn't include because I've got a new computer and my documents are on my old dying computer) in Presser v. Illinois (1886).

"We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

Yes, in 1886, nearly 100 years after the 2A was written, the Supreme Court said that the 2A does NOT protect individuals to walk around with guns. Hmmm.

Then you're ignoring DC v. Heller (2008), yes, we've got to 2008, AND a Conservative court.

"(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation."

Yes, Heller basically said that the ruling in Presser is still valid. Hmmm.... why would they have done this if they thought that "bear arms" mean carry arms around?

Also, as I said, and as you IGNORED, there are carry and conceal permits. Not only are they prevalent in right wing states, but the NRA supports such permits. Now, why would you do something like this if the right to bear arms was the right to carry guns around? It makes no sense.

And yet, you pulled the funny button out of your ass for what?

You've presented NO EVIDENCE. I've presented enough to PROVE my case. And I have more.

You get the funny, because you failed, MISERABLY, to make any point about the 2nd.

"right to... bear arms".

what does the ... stand for?


Oh, that's right...

the right to KEEP AND bear arms.

what did KEEP mean back in those days?

was it part of a castle?

was it to hold onto?

Yup,
the right of the people to KEEP their arms, and not have to turn them in to the local government.

You dance well, but the minuet is long out of favor.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Tell you what, seeing as you can't have an adult conversation, I'm saying bye.

Another person who, when presented with indisputable facts, acts like a child.

Bye.

Sorry I'm not locked into your wavelength.

(I seriously hope that few are)

but, you dont' seem to get the point.

and it's unlikely you ever will.

It doesn't matter what the arguments were in conceiving the 2nd, what matters is what was ratified.

You don't even bother taking the time. You just jump to the funny button. You start acting like a child because you haven't bothered to take the time to understand someone.

If I wanted to talk to people like this, I'd hang around with little kids.

I give you a funny, because you don't seem to understand the facts.

you present the opinions of people, and ignore the fact of what the 2nd actually says.

Rubbish.

I'm presenting facts. You don't understand my position. You could ask me questions. But no, you just pretend you know what I'm talking about. But you have no clue. So you jump to the funny button.

You want to talk about what the 2A "actually says".

Okay, what it actually says is "right to... bear arms".

Now, bear means lots of things.

Do you have a right to the arms of bears?

Because the 2A says yes, you do.

But only a fucking stupid moron would think that the 2A protects the right to bears's arms. Right? Why?

Let's try my favorite one. Stool.

"The doctor told me to sit on the stool", did the patient sit on a piece of poo, or did the patient sit on a wooden backless seat?

"The doctor told me to give him a stool sample", did the patient go and cut off a piece of the wooden backless seat, or did they give the doctor a piece of their poo?

You know what is what based on context.

Now, just because "stool" CAN MEAN a poo, doesn't mean that it does mean poo. That would be ridiculous and it would make understand English impossible because too many words have more than one meaning.

With the 2A it's different. The language being used is from the 1700s, what is "obvious" in 2017 might not have been "obvious" in 1789.

Now, what I showed you was the Founding Fathers using the term "bear arms". Not only did I show you that when they were writing the 2A they didn't mean the arms of bears, but that they didn't mean all versions of what "bear" can mean.

Bear as a verb means

bear | Definition of bear in US English by Oxford Dictionaries

1) carry

2) support

3) Endure

4) give birth

5) Turn and proceed in a different direction

Now, you're telling me that "the right to bear arms" means the right to "carry, support, endure, give birth to and turn and proceed in a different direction of arms"

Are you serious? You gave me the funny button because you think that it's funny that because "bear" can mean carry, therefore it MUST mean carry. Are you sure it's not ME that should be give YOU the funny button? Because under this logic, you're saying that in the USA, you have the right to give birth to a gun, that you have the right to endure a gun? That you have the right to turn and proceed in a different direction.... I'm struggling where I should put gun with this one.....

And all the while you're ignoring what the Founding Father said.

Not only this you're ignoring what the Supreme Court said (which I didn't include because I've got a new computer and my documents are on my old dying computer) in Presser v. Illinois (1886).

"We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

Yes, in 1886, nearly 100 years after the 2A was written, the Supreme Court said that the 2A does NOT protect individuals to walk around with guns. Hmmm.

Then you're ignoring DC v. Heller (2008), yes, we've got to 2008, AND a Conservative court.

"(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation."

Yes, Heller basically said that the ruling in Presser is still valid. Hmmm.... why would they have done this if they thought that "bear arms" mean carry arms around?

Also, as I said, and as you IGNORED, there are carry and conceal permits. Not only are they prevalent in right wing states, but the NRA supports such permits. Now, why would you do something like this if the right to bear arms was the right to carry guns around? It makes no sense.

And yet, you pulled the funny button out of your ass for what?

You've presented NO EVIDENCE. I've presented enough to PROVE my case. And I have more.

You get the funny, because you failed, MISERABLY, to make any point about the 2nd.

"right to... bear arms".

what does the ... stand for?


Oh, that's right...

the right to KEEP AND bear arms.

what did KEEP mean back in those days?

was it part of a castle?

was it to hold onto?

Yup,
the right of the people to KEEP their arms, and not have to turn them in to the local government.

You dance well, but the minuet is long out of favor.

So, you're not reading anything I write.

Right... you're a waste of time. You won't discuss the issues, you'll just try and make your agenda with NOTHING. You've got nothing, no evidence.

I said right at the beginning this would happen, and it's clear you don't want to see the truth.

So, the end.