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

[Auld Phart]

You've got nothing, no evidence.

My evidence is the 2nd amendment of the Bill of Rights.

what the discussions were leading up to its ratification don't mean squat.

Discussions after that don't mean squat

It passed, it's been around for well over 200 years.

You have parsed and edited said amendment to try to make your point.

you get upset when I laugh at your lame attempts.

I will continue laughing, because I see no reason not to laugh at your comedy.

 

[Spare_change]

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.

The reality is the Founding Fathers saw "bear arms" as "render military service"

That argument, simply, doesn't hold water. There is too much documentation of their desire to ensure that the citizenry was armed in order to provide a check and balance on the government. Further, the founding fathers have been explicit in their writings about what they intended. You seem to think that those not in the militia should not be armed - yet, when we look at the environment in which they lived, not having a gun was an unacceptable risk. You're parsing and pronouncing ...

You can't simply reinterpret the words to your liking. You have to consider not only the denotation of the words, but the connotation within which they pronounced those words.

 

[danielpalos]

Statistics? More guns=more crime.

And, cherry picking Only gun homicides is special pleading.

What about accidents. More guns = more potential gun accidents.

i suggest you do your research, and then come back and apologize. The presence of guns means LESS crime - it even means less "gun accidents" per 100,000.

Check it out ....

You are the one being illegal to the law of large numbers. Only gun control regulations can account for any safety.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

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

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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

Okay. Fine.

We're in the militia. Give me my machine guns.

 

[danielpalos]

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

Okay. Fine.

We're in the militia. Give me my machine guns.

You have to have a work ethic from the Age of Iron, and weapons qualify instead of learning how to fish. You ok with that?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

You have to have a work ethic from the Age of Iron, and weapons qualify instead of learning how to fish. You ok with that?

What? You make no sense.

I am in the militia. I get machine guns, hand grenades, RPGs, and the like.

Thanks.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …"
Richard Henry Lee
writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788.


"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington

 

[danielpalos]

You have to have a work ethic from the Age of Iron, and weapons qualify instead of learning how to fish. You ok with that?

What? You make no sense.

I am in the militia. I get machine guns, hand grenades, RPGs, and the like.

Thanks.

lol. only the lazy right wing claims that.

You have to have a work ethic from the Age of Iron, and weapons qualify instead of learning how to fish. You ok with that?

Only well regulated militia are necessary.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

lol. only the lazy right wing claims that.

You have to have a work ethic from the Age of Iron, and weapons qualify instead of learning how to fish. You ok with that?

Only well regulated militia are necessary.

You can't prove that I am not in the militia, as the founders intended.

Only the lazy commies claim that the right to bear arms is a collective right, when it is CLEARLY the individual's right.

You commies just can't admit that you have no precedent or reason on your side. You can't win on any legal or philosophical argument.

This leads me to believe that you don't give a cocksucking rat fuck about rights. You want your communist revolution, at all costs.

Sorry, bitch. We will fucking shoot down your commie revolution in short order. We have guns, and we're getting better ones soon.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
Thomas Paine

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
Richard Henry Lee
American Statesman, 1788

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

"The great object is that every man be armed." and "Everyone who is able may have a gun."
Patrick Henry
American Patriot

That's a collective right, for sure.


Dumbass commies trying like hell to make "up" into "down" and "hot" into "cold" for the sake of the revolution.

Fuck you, commies. I hope you try!!!

 

[danielpalos]

Militia service is not a natural right. Natural rights are not in question.

Only well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State and may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

Don't appeal to ignorance, right wingers.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Militia service is not a natural right. Natural rights are not in question.

The right to bear arms is a natural right. Do you even "John Locke" bro?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Our 21st-Century Second Amendment
"The document does not create the right; the right precedes the document, which merely recognizes it and ensures that the government is constrained when, inevitably, its all-too-human members are tempted to violate that right."

It does state "the right of the people" which does indicate a pre-existing right.

 

[danielpalos]

Militia service is not a natural right. Natural rights are not in question.

The right to bear arms is a natural right. Do you even "John Locke" bro?

No, it isn't. The right to acquire and possess is a natural right. Militia service is an obligation of the People.

 

[danielpalos]

Our 21st-Century Second Amendment
"The document does not create the right; the right precedes the document, which merely recognizes it and ensures that the government is constrained when, inevitably, its all-too-human members are tempted to violate that right."

It does state "the right of the people" which does indicate a pre-existing right.

Only well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; regardless of the unorganized militia.

 

[Spare_change]

Militia service is not a natural right. Natural rights are not in question.

The right to bear arms is a natural right. Do you even "John Locke" bro?

No, it isn't. The right to acquire and possess is a natural right. Militia service is an obligation of the People.

You know --- I am continually amazed at the level of ignorance espoused by the left today.

The 1st and 2nd Amendments are an excellent example.

The 1st Amendment clearly limits the government from passing laws abridging several enumerated rights. It says nothing - not a single word - about me abridging your right to speak. The government - not me - not BLM - not Antifa. It is NOT unconstitutional for BLM to block speeches at UC Berkeley - it might be an illegal activity, but it isn't unconstitutional. You will notice that the blockers aren't charged with preventing the speech -they're always charged with rioting, blocking an event, trespassing, whatever the hell the cops can find. But, they're blocking your speech is, in fact, an expression of their freedom of speech (which is NOT guaranteed by the 1st Amendment)

The 2nd Amendment is the same - it prevents the GOVERNMENT from passing laws infringing on the rights of the people to bear arms. "Why" isn't the issue - the attempts to parse the wording in order to arrive at a contorted definition in order to fit a preconceived political position are, simply, wrongheaded.

The Constitution is a restrictive document - it does not "grant" rights to anybody. If it ain't restricted by the Constitution, it's legal. Some would say - myself included - if it isn't SPECIFICALLY restricted by the Constitution, it's legal.

 

[Spare_change]

Our 21st-Century Second Amendment
"The document does not create the right; the right precedes the document, which merely recognizes it and ensures that the government is constrained when, inevitably, its all-too-human members are tempted to violate that right."

It does state "the right of the people" which does indicate a pre-existing right.

Only well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; regardless of the unorganized militia.

Hurt yourself?

I mean - distorting, contorting, averting, and perverting the 2nd Amendment like that sure was a lot of work.