Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Keep arms. Bear arms. I have no issue with individuals doing either. I have a problem with one's aiming one's unlawfully directing the "business end" of humanity's manufactured arms toward another person. I recognize that will happen to some degree no matter what policies be enacted; however, I'm of a mind that the degree to which it does and has happened in the U.S. exceeds the degree I find acceptable. Because I find that the frequency to which people in the U.S. "unlawfully direct the 'business end' of humanity's manufactured arms" toward others, I would see implemented policies that strive to reduce the frequency with which that act happens. Quite frankly, I'm largely indifferent about what policies, liberal or conservative, be implemented to achieve that end. Try them all, I say.Right to keep and bear arms
....And yet, it has not, IMO, done so with enough alacrity, nor it is now nor has it in the past 20 years been adequately low enough in proportion to the population of the U.S. as compared with/to other major democratic nations that I'm of a mind that enough has been and is being done to hasten the decline and achieve proportionate parity with other democratic nations peopled with individuals ascribing to largely similarly values and Western sociopolitical philosophy.The number of gun murders per capita has been steadily dropping in the US since the 1970s.
The People is plural and collective, not singular or Individual. Why do you appeal to ignorance of the actual and literal meaning of the words involved, in our Second Amendment?not at all. it is current practice in our Republic.the people are the militia. well regulated militia of the people shall not be infringed.The first clause states well regulated militia shall not be Infringed. The People and the Militia are terms that are both, plural and collective. Any dictionary will tell me so.
It doesn't say the militia shall not be infringed,
twisting the wording again
only your twisted concept of it.
you keep leaving out the wording, they right of the people to keep and bear arms.
why?
That is not the point of our Second Amendment. Our Second Amendment is most definitely, not about the whole and entire concept of natural rights.Why appeal to ignorance?the people are the militia. well regulated militia of the people shall not be infringed.The first clause states well regulated militia shall not be Infringed. The People and the Militia are terms that are both, plural and collective. Any dictionary will tell me so.
It doesn't say the militia shall not be infringed,
It doesn't say that the militia shall not be infringed, and even if your interpretation that they meant "militia" when they said "people", it doesn't say that the people shall not be infringed, it says that the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The rules of English don't cease to apply when it's convenient to your political opinions.
The People = The Militia. Well regulated Militia=People, are declared necessary to the security of a free State and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
You are just -dedicated- to achieving your goal through word games, aren't you? So typical of the modern far left.
No matter how much you try to complicate this rather simple sentence, it won't make factual your argument that the founders only meant for people to be armed in the context of well regulated paramilitary organizations.
You don't know what you are talking about.natural rights are in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.what does a dictionary say?Judicial activism alleges to gainsay a dictionary definition.
And that same "judicial activism" has ruled that the 1st and 4th amendments are not collective rights either.
Would you like to see all 3 amendments be seen as "collective rights"?
It says "the right" is singular. So every single citizen has it.
All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.
No, the state constitutions do not over-ride the US Constitution. Quite the opposite.
The People is plural and collective, not singular or Individual. Why do you appeal to ignorance of the actual and literal meaning of the words involved, in our Second Amendment?not at all. it is current practice in our Republic.the people are the militia. well regulated militia of the people shall not be infringed.It doesn't say the militia shall not be infringed,
twisting the wording again
only your twisted concept of it.
you keep leaving out the wording, they right of the people to keep and bear arms.
why?
Why do you appeal to ignorance of the actual and literal meaning of the words involved, in our Second Amendment?
Yes, it does. Why do you believe it doesn't. Read paragraph (2) of DC v Heller, and tell me I am wrong.It says, the security of a free State depends on well regulated militia not being Infringed.It says, a well regulated militia is Necessary. It does not say, the unorganized militia of the People, is necessary in any way.Our Second Amendment clearly states the Intent and Purpose, in the first clause.
and that's all the further you read.
continue reading...
the Right to keep and bear arms was given to the People, not the Militia.
As a militia they will be organized. But it does not say "...the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Because it is the people who will make up the militia if needed.
Nope, it doesn't say that.
It has to do what the meaning of words, mean. Only the right wing, never gets it.WTF are you talking about?lol.this is the understanding that was ratified at the convention:
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
again, the same person, in the debates to ratify the Constitution.
Would you like to see the remarks of several presidents, and statesmen, of that era?
Some whose names have lasted far longer than Masons?
That believe the Right of the People to keep and bear arms?
or is he your only argument.
our Constitution was ratified. It is all the argument I need.
And what that has to do with OP?
You don't know what you are talking about.natural rights are in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.what does a dictionary say?And that same "judicial activism" has ruled that the 1st and 4th amendments are not collective rights either.
Would you like to see all 3 amendments be seen as "collective rights"?
It says "the right" is singular. So every single citizen has it.
All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.
No, the state constitutions do not over-ride the US Constitution. Quite the opposite.
This is why, nobody takes the right wing seriously about Constitutional law, or even politics.
Nothing but special pleading?The People is plural and collective, not singular or Individual. Why do you appeal to ignorance of the actual and literal meaning of the words involved, in our Second Amendment?not at all. it is current practice in our Republic.the people are the militia. well regulated militia of the people shall not be infringed.
twisting the wording again
only your twisted concept of it.
you keep leaving out the wording, they right of the people to keep and bear arms.
why?Why do you appeal to ignorance of the actual and literal meaning of the words involved, in our Second Amendment?
I'm not the one leaving out "the Right of the People to keep and Bear Arms" from my posts.
Those are 'actual and literal' words in the 2nd.
so what; you can claim all you want. you still have nothing but fallacy to support Your opinions.You don't know what you are talking about.natural rights are in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.what does a dictionary say?
It says "the right" is singular. So every single citizen has it.
All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.
No, the state constitutions do not over-ride the US Constitution. Quite the opposite.
This is why, nobody takes the right wing seriously about Constitutional law, or even politics.
no one is taking you seriously on your view of the Constitution.
Esp the 2nd.
Nothing but special pleading?The People is plural and collective, not singular or Individual. Why do you appeal to ignorance of the actual and literal meaning of the words involved, in our Second Amendment?not at all. it is current practice in our Republic.twisting the wording again
only your twisted concept of it.
you keep leaving out the wording, they right of the people to keep and bear arms.
why?Why do you appeal to ignorance of the actual and literal meaning of the words involved, in our Second Amendment?
I'm not the one leaving out "the Right of the People to keep and Bear Arms" from my posts.
Those are 'actual and literal' words in the 2nd.
The People is plural and collective, not singular or Individual. Why do you appeal to ignorance of the actual and literal meaning of the words involved, in our Second Amendment?
This is why, I Always question every Thing, about the right Wing.Nothing but special pleading?The People is plural and collective, not singular or Individual. Why do you appeal to ignorance of the actual and literal meaning of the words involved, in our Second Amendment?not at all. it is current practice in our Republic.
only your twisted concept of it.
you keep leaving out the wording, they right of the people to keep and bear arms.
why?Why do you appeal to ignorance of the actual and literal meaning of the words involved, in our Second Amendment?
I'm not the one leaving out "the Right of the People to keep and Bear Arms" from my posts.
Those are 'actual and literal' words in the 2nd.
The People is plural and collective, not singular or Individual. Why do you appeal to ignorance of the actual and literal meaning of the words involved, in our Second Amendment?
the fallacy is yours, if you believe the Founders didn't mean ALL the people.
The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
You only fight when you have the advantage! Wow, you have very little understanding of history. Maybe you want to captulate, I would rather die in my boots than live on my knees. The Brits were not the under dog, we were. Can we line up and go head to head with our government? The answer is no! that is why you would not attempt it. You would create an asymetric war. As time goes on you make what is thiers yours. It is about standing against a tyranical government and they can be brought down it has happened many times in history. War is about will more than weapons.In this thought experiment you first say people have the constitutional right to be able to arm themselves against the standing army, and then acknowledge that because of the strength of that army the best citizens can hope for is significant damage. It seems you contradict your own position here. I think you realize that the citizenry arming themselves with heavy weapons is probably a bad idea so you are hedging. But hedging puts a lie to your argument that the second amendment is necessary as protection against tyranny.We heard so many times from the left how Trump is racist, Nazi etc.
Here's an interesting thought experiment for your leftist friends and family members:
Imagine your worst nightmares about Trump came true. Imagine that he was instituting the fourth reich using Muslims and liberals as a scapegoat to bring about a totalitarian state in the US. Imagine families were being rounded up and shipped off and never heard from again. Imagine the crushing power of the US government was brought full force against people who were its citizens. Imagine all the protests were put down, at first with tear gas and rubber bullets, and then with live ammunition and mass arrests.
What could you possibly do? What happens when the first amendment fails? You go to the second amendment, which specifically articulates the people of the United States be so equipped as to field real opposition to a tyrannical government with its fully equipped army. That means having access, at least in part, to equipment and weapons that would be capable of opposing it.
Now of course modern warfare is different and you aren't exactly going to have a counter to the air force and armor divisions. But you would, with high capacity weaponry and high powered rifles be able to do a significant amount of damage and perhaps if not overthrow than at least disrupt to the point of capitulation the force of tyranny you faced (through assassination campaigns, kidnappings, "terrorist" acts etc).
The second amendment isn't just for people on the right.
Absolutely correct.
When you're being oppressed by an enemy that's so powerful that it's unlikely that you can defeat them, it's best to just capitulate so that you don't get hurt. You should only fight when odds are in your favor.
The Founders knew that when they went to war against the British underdogs. That's why it's silly to assume that the 2nd Amendment was at all about protection from an oppressive government.
Stick to protesting. If they don't let you protest, then just accept that they're stronger than you and do what you're told.
Plenty of hypocritical regressives have guns.
This is why, I Always question every Thing, about the right Wing.Nothing but special pleading?The People is plural and collective, not singular or Individual. Why do you appeal to ignorance of the actual and literal meaning of the words involved, in our Second Amendment?only your twisted concept of it.
you keep leaving out the wording, they right of the people to keep and bear arms.
why?Why do you appeal to ignorance of the actual and literal meaning of the words involved, in our Second Amendment?
I'm not the one leaving out "the Right of the People to keep and Bear Arms" from my posts.
Those are 'actual and literal' words in the 2nd.
The People is plural and collective, not singular or Individual. Why do you appeal to ignorance of the actual and literal meaning of the words involved, in our Second Amendment?
the fallacy is yours, if you believe the Founders didn't mean ALL the people.
The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
That is the common law.
Sorry you never know with the crazies on here some people actually belive what you were talking about.2nd has always been about stopping oppressive government. Tell us another one.In this thought experiment you first say people have the constitutional right to be able to arm themselves against the standing army, and then acknowledge that because of the strength of that army the best citizens can hope for is significant damage. It seems you contradict your own position here. I think you realize that the citizenry arming themselves with heavy weapons is probably a bad idea so you are hedging. But hedging puts a lie to your argument that the second amendment is necessary as protection against tyranny.We heard so many times from the left how Trump is racist, Nazi etc.
Here's an interesting thought experiment for your leftist friends and family members:
Imagine your worst nightmares about Trump came true. Imagine that he was instituting the fourth reich using Muslims and liberals as a scapegoat to bring about a totalitarian state in the US. Imagine families were being rounded up and shipped off and never heard from again. Imagine the crushing power of the US government was brought full force against people who were its citizens. Imagine all the protests were put down, at first with tear gas and rubber bullets, and then with live ammunition and mass arrests.
What could you possibly do? What happens when the first amendment fails? You go to the second amendment, which specifically articulates the people of the United States be so equipped as to field real opposition to a tyrannical government with its fully equipped army. That means having access, at least in part, to equipment and weapons that would be capable of opposing it.
Now of course modern warfare is different and you aren't exactly going to have a counter to the air force and armor divisions. But you would, with high capacity weaponry and high powered rifles be able to do a significant amount of damage and perhaps if not overthrow than at least disrupt to the point of capitulation the force of tyranny you faced (through assassination campaigns, kidnappings, "terrorist" acts etc).
The second amendment isn't just for people on the right.
Absolutely correct.
When you're being oppressed by an enemy that's so powerful that it's unlikely that you can defeat them, it's best to just capitulate so that you don't get hurt. You should only fight when odds are in your favor.
The Founders knew that when they went to war against the British underdogs. That's why it's silly to assume that the 2nd Amendment was at all about protection from an oppressive government.
Stick to protesting. If they don't let you protest, then just accept that they're stronger than you and do what you're told.
Damn, man, I know there's no vocal tones in text, but I feel like I laid the sarcasm on way too thick for it to be missed. I even dropped that "British underdogs" bit in there just in case lol
This is why, I Always question every Thing, about the right Wing.Nothing but special pleading?The People is plural and collective, not singular or Individual. Why do you appeal to ignorance of the actual and literal meaning of the words involved, in our Second Amendment?only your twisted concept of it.
you keep leaving out the wording, they right of the people to keep and bear arms.
why?Why do you appeal to ignorance of the actual and literal meaning of the words involved, in our Second Amendment?
I'm not the one leaving out "the Right of the People to keep and Bear Arms" from my posts.
Those are 'actual and literal' words in the 2nd.
The People is plural and collective, not singular or Individual. Why do you appeal to ignorance of the actual and literal meaning of the words involved, in our Second Amendment?
the fallacy is yours, if you believe the Founders didn't mean ALL the people.
The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
That is the common law.
This is why, I Always question every Thing, about the right Wing.Nothing but special pleading?The People is plural and collective, not singular or Individual. Why do you appeal to ignorance of the actual and literal meaning of the words involved, in our Second Amendment?Why do you appeal to ignorance of the actual and literal meaning of the words involved, in our Second Amendment?
I'm not the one leaving out "the Right of the People to keep and Bear Arms" from my posts.
Those are 'actual and literal' words in the 2nd.
The People is plural and collective, not singular or Individual. Why do you appeal to ignorance of the actual and literal meaning of the words involved, in our Second Amendment?
the fallacy is yours, if you believe the Founders didn't mean ALL the people.
The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
That is the common law.
that is exactly correct.
Positive proof, as to why I don't take the right wing seriously about Constitutional law.This is why, I Always question every Thing, about the right Wing.Nothing but special pleading?The People is plural and collective, not singular or Individual. Why do you appeal to ignorance of the actual and literal meaning of the words involved, in our Second Amendment?Why do you appeal to ignorance of the actual and literal meaning of the words involved, in our Second Amendment?
I'm not the one leaving out "the Right of the People to keep and Bear Arms" from my posts.
Those are 'actual and literal' words in the 2nd.
The People is plural and collective, not singular or Individual. Why do you appeal to ignorance of the actual and literal meaning of the words involved, in our Second Amendment?
the fallacy is yours, if you believe the Founders didn't mean ALL the people.
The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
That is the common law.
organized militia?
Other than the National Guard, does the United States still support an 'organized Militia'?
and what is the 'unorganized militia' you kept bringing up?
