I've heard it on here so much enough is enough

[The T]

You mean they don't even provide their own arms anymore?

I mean that you haven't the first idea of what you're talking about.

But extremely few partisan hard leftists ever do.

We are talking about well regulated militias and how they are no longer relevant in a modern society

They have ALWAYS been relevant and WHY the Second was crafted...it zooms right over your head.

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." ~Thomas Jefferson

 

[HelenaHandbag]

You mean they don't even provide their own arms anymore?

I mean that you haven't the first idea of what you're talking about.

But extremely few partisan hard leftists ever do.

We are talking about well regulated militias and how they are no longer relevant in a modern society

We were talking about the responsibility of regulating that militia.

Neglecting to regulate something does not, as a matter of course, render it irrelevant.

 

[BlackSand]

We are talking about well regulated militias and how they are no longer relevant in a modern society

That is probably why they don't exist outside of the Uniformed Services.
Unfortunately for your side of the argument ... That has nothing to do with a citizen's right to bear arms as defined by State Laws and Constitutions.

I mean have you ever wondered why firearms laws are different between the states ... Have you ever tried to figure out how some states protect the rights of their citizens more than others do?
Take for instance the Louisiana State Constitution on the right to bear arms recently ratified by the voters with a 75% margin ...

"The right of individuals to acquire, keep, possess, transport, carry, transfer, and use arms for defense of life and liberty, and for all other legitimate purposes,
is fundamental and shall not be denied or infringed, and any restriction on this right must be subjected to strict scrutiny."

Now try to punch holes in what that means.
.

 

[Flopper]

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

Seems they wanted to ensure that their militia had access to arms. Now, we have to set up some of those well regulated militias don't we?

Seems clear and concise

Militias arise organically. There is no "we" necessary to set them up.

Only leftists fail to see rugged individualism...they need others to shepherd them...otherwise they are lost.

Rugged individualism was coined by Herbert Hoover which reflected his idea of how the federal government should not interfere with the American people during the Great Depression. However, that praise didn't help Hoover in the 1932 election. Rugged individualism didn't appeal to the 1 in 4 Americans without jobs, the thousands living in Hoovervilles, and the hundreds of thousands that lost their homes, farms, and businesses.

The days of rugged individualism when the strong prospered and weak perished are gone and are not likely to every return.

 

[mudwhistle]

Our founders were 18th century Liberals
Today, we have 21st century Liberals

Why would you expect them to be the same thing? Do todays Conservatives still support the King of England? They did in the 18th century

Eighteenth century liberals would see you far leftist "21st century" liberals as the lunatic fringe. If they saw who was president, they would no doubt compare him to the King of England. A tyrant is a tyrant, no matter what century you come from.

Your sarcasm is no substitute for an actual argument.

18th century liberals looked at things through 18th century eyes. They could not come close to envisioning what issues and needs a 21st century society would require. I envision that anyone in the 18th century would look at people in the 21st century as lunatics....imagine having a black man as your president?

Yup, Democrats would never stand for that sort of thing even in 1960.

Now they feel he has this ready made shield that surrounds him and anyone who is critical of him has to be a racist.

 

[mudwhistle]

Militias arise organically. There is no "we" necessary to set them up.

Only leftists fail to see rugged individualism...they need others to shepherd them...otherwise they are lost.

Rugged individualism was coined by Herbert Hoover which reflected his idea of how the federal government should not interfere with the American people during the Great Depression. However, that praise didn't help Hoover in the 1932 election. Rugged individualism didn't appeal to the 1 in 4 Americans without jobs, the thousands living in Hoovervilles, and the hundreds of thousands that lost their homes, farms, and businesses.

The days of rugged individualism when the strong prospered and weak perished are gone and are not likely to every return.

We didn't build that.........the government did.

 

[rightwinger]

I mean that you haven't the first idea of what you're talking about.

But extremely few partisan hard leftists ever do.

We are talking about well regulated militias and how they are no longer relevant in a modern society

They have ALWAYS been relevant and WHY the Second was crafted...it zooms right over your head.

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." ~Thomas Jefferson

A free press is a greater deterrent than armed civilians

 

[daveman]

The second amendment is neither clear or concise
That is why it is still argued over 200 years later

If they wanted to be clear they would have just stated the people have a right to bear arms that shall not be infringed

They made it clear they were talking about arming a militia

Reality says differently.

You can argue with reality, but you will not win.

You and reality diverged a long time ago

Ahhh, the old "No, YOU!!" ploy. Devastating.

If I were so completely incapable of original thinking, I wouldn't advertise it so blatantly.

 

[daveman]

I mean that you haven't the first idea of what you're talking about.

But extremely few partisan hard leftists ever do.

We are talking about well regulated militias and how they are no longer relevant in a modern society

We were talking about the responsibility of regulating that militia.

Neglecting to regulate something does not, as a matter of course, render it irrelevant.

Example: The Obama Administration's refusal to enforce immigration laws and border security. Both are very important and relevant; they just don't fit Obama's agenda of letting in as many illegals AKA potential Democrat voters as possible.

 

[daveman]

We are talking about well regulated militias and how they are no longer relevant in a modern society

They have ALWAYS been relevant and WHY the Second was crafted...it zooms right over your head.

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." ~Thomas Jefferson

A free press is a greater deterrent than armed civilians

But what if the press is a propaganda outlet for the ruling class?

If not for the few conservative media outlets, Mr and Mrs Average American would know nothing of Benghazi or the IRS scandals other that what the White House wanted them to know.

 

[rightwinger]

I mean that you haven't the first idea of what you're talking about.

But extremely few partisan hard leftists ever do.

We are talking about well regulated militias and how they are no longer relevant in a modern society

We were talking about the responsibility of regulating that militia.

Neglecting to regulate something does not, as a matter of course, render it irrelevant.

Sure does......militias have not been a relevant fighting force in 150 years

Making the Second Amendment irrelevant at the federal level. Gun rights should be a state issue

 

[rightwinger]

Eighteenth century liberals would see you far leftist "21st century" liberals as the lunatic fringe. If they saw who was president, they would no doubt compare him to the King of England. A tyrant is a tyrant, no matter what century you come from.

Your sarcasm is no substitute for an actual argument.

18th century liberals looked at things through 18th century eyes. They could not come close to envisioning what issues and needs a 21st century society would require. I envision that anyone in the 18th century would look at people in the 21st century as lunatics....imagine having a black man as your president?

Yup, Democrats would never stand for that sort of thing even in 1960.

Now they feel he has this ready made shield that surrounds him and anyone who is critical of him has to be a racist.

1960 was 50 years ago. Republicans still balk at electing blacks. Managing to elect only SIX in the last hundred years

 

[rightwinger]

We are talking about well regulated militias and how they are no longer relevant in a modern society

We were talking about the responsibility of regulating that militia.

Neglecting to regulate something does not, as a matter of course, render it irrelevant.

Example: The Obama Administration's refusal to enforce immigration laws and border security. Both are very important and relevant; they just don't fit Obama's agenda of letting in as many illegals AKA potential Democrat voters as possible.

Border security and deportations have increased under Obama......Didnt FoxNews tell you that?

 

[paperview]

They have ALWAYS been relevant and WHY the Second was crafted...it zooms right over your head.

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." ~Thomas Jefferson

That's a fake quote. Jefferson never said that.

 

[paperview]

Regulated meant controlled, trained and organized to be an effective fighting force

A bunch of rednecks with shotguns is not a well regulated militia

Regulated meant and continues to mean to be made regular. Training and organizing would be part of that regularity.

But the feds have abandoned that obligation. That is no fault of the "bunch of rednecks" that you so snobbishly look down your nose upon.

You mean they don't even provide their own arms anymore?

And back then...the feds forced 'em to buy a product!

 

[Kosh]

We are talking about well regulated militias and how they are no longer relevant in a modern society

They have ALWAYS been relevant and WHY the Second was crafted...it zooms right over your head.

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." ~Thomas Jefferson

A free press is a greater deterrent than armed civilians

To bad one does not exist.

 

[Kosh]

We are talking about well regulated militias and how they are no longer relevant in a modern society

We were talking about the responsibility of regulating that militia.

Neglecting to regulate something does not, as a matter of course, render it irrelevant.

Example: The Obama Administration's refusal to enforce immigration laws and border security. Both are very important and relevant; they just don't fit Obama's agenda of letting in as many illegals AKA potential Democrat voters as possible.

Actually that would be legal slave labor.

 

[Nyvin]

They have ALWAYS been relevant and WHY the Second was crafted...it zooms right over your head.

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." ~Thomas Jefferson

A free press is a greater deterrent than armed civilians

But what if the press is a propaganda outlet for the ruling class?

If not for the few conservative media outlets, Mr and Mrs Average American would know nothing of Benghazi or the IRS scandals other that what the White House wanted them to know.

Both the Benghazi and IRS scandals have been debunked....they're passed their prime. Benghazi in particular is pretty much dead. It wasn't on the white house's blame as much as "some" would leave you to believe.

Something that is still alive is the issues with the NSA, but it's not an easy situation to deal with, for any president.

 

[Kosh]

18th century liberals looked at things through 18th century eyes. They could not come close to envisioning what issues and needs a 21st century society would require. I envision that anyone in the 18th century would look at people in the 21st century as lunatics....imagine having a black man as your president?

Yup, Democrats would never stand for that sort of thing even in 1960.

Now they feel he has this ready made shield that surrounds him and anyone who is critical of him has to be a racist.

1960 was 50 years ago. Republicans still balk at electing blacks. Managing to elect only SIX in the last hundred years

More far left lies!

It was the Republican Congress that passed the Civil Rights Bill and the Democrats were the party of NO! As always the far left wants to rewrite history.

 

[Kosh]

We were talking about the responsibility of regulating that militia.

Neglecting to regulate something does not, as a matter of course, render it irrelevant.

Example: The Obama Administration's refusal to enforce immigration laws and border security. Both are very important and relevant; they just don't fit Obama's agenda of letting in as many illegals AKA potential Democrat voters as possible.

Border security and deportations have increased under Obama......Didnt FoxNews tell you that?

Because the ACLU (a far left organization) has backed off suing the government. Although border security has had it hands tied by this administration. All they can do now is watch and not be pro active.

And deportations are up only slightly 1% over Bush, but to date Bush still beats Obama by the numbers.