Joe Biden Says That The Second Amendment Isn't Absolute

[Abatis]

1) Well as countries, the vast majority would be on my 'places to live' list well above the US.

Fine with me. The feeling is mutual.

2) Nah, it's not duplicitous to want to walk down the street minding my own business and not having to worry about some loon having a bad day opening fire on me.

And that right there is an example of the duplicitousness . . . The ease at which anti-gun leftists abandon the discussion at hand and attempt to straw-man and red herring the debate with idiotic diversions; that is the very definition of your inauthenticity and mendaciousness -- all to advance the agenda.

As long as you have the ballot box you get a say in how your country is run.

But the fundamental rights of the citizen are not subject to any election. My right to keep and bear arms can not be put on a ballot and voted away.

3) Other than locking my door at night and having insurance I don't do anything to ensure my security because nobody is out to get me.

Those who must be out and about in high crime areas don't have the luxury of pulling the bedclothes over their heads. In Philadelphia, crime finds you even if you are so deluded to think you are immune. Just before Christmas last year, a sitting US Congresswoman was carjacked at gunpoint in a city park . . .

U.S. congresswoman carjacked at gunpoint in Philadelphia park

Delaware state police have taken into custody five suspects after U.S. Representative Mary Gay Scanlon was robbed of her automobile at gunpoint in a Philadelphia park on Wednesday.

www.reuters.com

4) Nice link to a partisan hack site.

Did you look at the article? It was well cited and statistically supported piece, explaining why conservative "Trump supporting" areas, are safe, clean, polite and tolerant places to live (even for people who are not Trump supporters, you knee-jerk, ad-hom, red herring throwing clod).

It is the places where leftists / Democrats are in power that are the dirty, abusive, discriminatory, dangerous and plain horrible places to live. I know, I fled one of the worst as soon as I could.

Not lost on me you talk about the same Trump who tried to instigate a coup, doesn't give a rats about your constitution and is a disgusting human being - all rolled into one.

Did I "talk about Trump"; did I say anything about Trump? All I said is, I now live in a area with conservative values and the majority of people voted for Trump.

Are you capable of containing your replies, only addressing / rebutting what I have actually written?

 

[Abatis]

Ok, the second wasn't in the constitution. It was an amendment. Which part is untrue. It's not an amendment?

See, there you go again . . . I did not say your statement was untrue. I said you have no clue how any of this works and I asked, why do you engage in discussions when you are so complete ignorant of everything?

While your statement is factually true; the import you place on it is fundamentally wrong. The end conclusion you draw from that import, that the right to arms depends upon constitutional recognition, is profoundly incorrect.

I have given you the truth, I have presented the foundational principles to you and quoted the Supreme Court's affirmations and enforcement of those principles and yet you push-on, deciding to just dismiss the Supreme Court's rulings as mere "opinions" and then you argue that oppositional opinions, with similar weight, are just as numerous.

You have proven again and again that you will not even acknowledge anything that challenges your beliefs and you will refuse to engage in any discussion of those uncomfortable facts . . . And yet, you expect me to recognize the veracity of your drivel and swallow your ignorant gruel without any hesitation.

It's not about mustering interest, it is having gone over the same arguments time and time again, ad nauseam.

Your positions are emotional constructs, not logical, educated positions. You present them with great conviction but all that shows is how emotionally invested you are in them.

You have never attempted to actually defend your statements with anything beyond your ill-formed opinions and biases and when presented with argument fatal to your viewpoints, you dissemble and divert and descend into a circle-jerk of logical fallacy or just simply dismiss the relevance of the proofs I provide (like you hilariously do with the Supreme Court).

Oh, what a lovely condescending, patronising cartoon. Gee, why don't people take you seriously.

It is a succinct statement of how you lemming-like leftist ignoramuses conduct yourselves in a discussion . . .

The difference between somebody like me and you is that I think there is an opposing point of view, you think you're right, period.

No, the difference between you and me is, I know you are wrong but I believe that if presented with the correct information and proofs, you will see the error of your ways and change your mind.

You and all leftists believe it does not matter if those who disagree with you are wrong . . . You are unwilling to make the intellectual investment to actually debate them to try to prove you are right and they are wrong.

You believe their opposition to the statist, leftist, neo-Marxist agenda is evidence enough to condemn them as evil and subhuman, which allows you to dismiss them as competent voices to even discuss the policies you support.

And like an actor hitting their mark, you close your idiotic post with. . .

And when I think of your type of thinking I think of people like Che, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Putin, Hitler.....

That there is called confession by projection.

It is you who aligns with them and looks with envy their ease crushing any desire in their people for self-determination through their rights-crushing authoritarian practices and you love the ultimate freedom those despots enjoyed after all internal opposition was exterminated. That is the utopia I denounce and you pine for.

I'm the one arguing for self determination, for rights (exceptions of government power) claimed, possessed and exercised without permission of government. What stupidity for you to assign the policies of those despots to me when it is you who tacitly embrace the doctrine of people only having the "rights" their rulers wish to give them . . . Your entire argument is centered on that theme.

When one has that as a foundational philosophy, it is you who are only a small nudge away from the inhumanity of those devils you mention.

I'm sure whatever shithole you hail from, eagerly welcomes you as a resident, the loyal, unquestioning, subservient subject you are.

 

[2aguy]

See, there you go again . . . I did not say your statement was untrue. I said you have no clue how any of this works and I asked, why do you engage in discussions when you are so complete ignorant of everything?

While your statement is factually true; the import you place on it is fundamentally wrong. The end conclusion you draw from that import, that the right to arms depends upon constitutional recognition, is profoundly incorrect.

I have given you the truth, I have presented the foundational principles to you and quoted the Supreme Court's affirmations and enforcement of those principles and yet you push-on, deciding to just dismiss the Supreme Court's rulings as mere "opinions" and then you argue that oppositional opinions, with similar weight, are just as numerous.

You have proven again and again that you will not even acknowledge anything that challenges your beliefs and you will refuse to engage in any discussion of those uncomfortable facts . . . And yet, you expect me to recognize the veracity of your drivel and swallow your ignorant gruel without any hesitation.



Your positions are emotional constructs, not logical, educated positions. You present them with great conviction but all that shows is how emotionally invested you are in them.

You have never attempted to actually defend your statements with anything beyond your ill-formed opinions and biases and when presented with argument fatal to your viewpoints, you dissemble and divert and descend into a circle-jerk of logical fallacy or just simply dismiss the relevance of the proofs I provide (like you hilariously do with the Supreme Court).



It is a succinct statement of how you lemming-like leftist ignoramuses conduct yourselves in a discussion . . .



No, the difference between you and me is, I know you are wrong but I believe that if presented with the correct information and proofs, you will see the error of your ways and change your mind.

You and all leftists believe it does not matter if those who disagree with you are wrong . . . You are unwilling to make the intellectual investment to actually debate them to try to prove you are right and they are wrong.

You believe their opposition to the statist, leftist, neo-Marxist agenda is evidence enough to condemn them as evil and subhuman, which allows you to dismiss them as competent voices to even discuss the policies you support.

And like an actor hitting their mark, you close your idiotic post with. . .



That there is called confession by projection.

It is you who aligns with them and looks with envy their ease crushing any desire in their people for self-determination through their rights-crushing authoritarian practices and you love the ultimate freedom those despots enjoyed after all internal opposition was exterminated. That is the utopia I denounce and you pine for.

I'm the one arguing for self determination, for rights (exceptions of government power) claimed, possessed and exercised without permission of government. What stupidity for you to assign the policies of those despots to me when it is you who tacitly embrace the doctrine of people only having the "rights" their rulers wish to give them . . . Your entire argument is centered on that theme.

When one has that as a foundational philosophy, it is you who are only a small nudge away from the inhumanity of those devils you mention.

I'm sure whatever shithole you hail from, eagerly welcomes you as a resident, the loyal, unquestioning, subservient subject you are.

This.....

 

[Dr Grump]

Fine with me. The feeling is mutual.



And that right there is an example of the duplicitousness . . . The ease at which anti-gun leftists abandon the discussion at hand and attempt to straw-man and red herring the debate with idiotic diversions; that is the very definition of your inauthenticity and mendaciousness -- all to advance the agenda.



But the fundamental rights of the citizen are not subject to any election. My right to keep and bear arms can not be put on a ballot and voted away.



Those who must be out and about in high crime areas don't have the luxury of pulling the bedclothes over their heads. In Philadelphia, crime finds you even if you are so deluded to think you are immune. Just before Christmas last year, a sitting US Congresswoman was carjacked at gunpoint in a city park . . .

U.S. congresswoman carjacked at gunpoint in Philadelphia park

Delaware state police have taken into custody five suspects after U.S. Representative Mary Gay Scanlon was robbed of her automobile at gunpoint in a Philadelphia park on Wednesday.

www.reuters.com

Did you look at the article? It was well cited and statistically supported piece, explaining why conservative "Trump supporting" areas, are safe, clean, polite and tolerant places to live (even for people who are not Trump supporters, you knee-jerk, ad-hom, red herring throwing clod).

It is the places where leftists / Democrats are in power that are the dirty, abusive, discriminatory, dangerous and plain horrible places to live. I know, I fled one of the worst as soon as I could.



Did I "talk about Trump"; did I say anything about Trump? All I said is, I now live in a area with conservative values and the majority of people voted for Trump.

Are you capable of containing your replies, only addressing / rebutting what I have actually written?

1) touche
2) Yeah. Duplicitous List of mass shootings in the United States in 2021 - Wikipedia
3) That is where I see it differently. Remember, I'm talking philosophically, not US law. I see it as a privilege, not a right. Just like driving a car.
4) Yep, as I said the US is a violent place. It is in a death spiral due to the amount of firearms you have there (IMO)
5) For a start it is Briebart - you couldn't get a more partisan hack site if you tried. The stats are skewed in so many ways i don't even know where to start but I'll give you two examples off the bat. It says that where the writer lives there were 2.9 hate crimes per 100,000 people while in Portland there were 5.75 per 100,000. For a start that number is almost in the margin of error, but more importantly he doesn't give context. ie, there could be 50 black people, 30 Hispanics and 20 other people per 100,000 people living in his area (he doesn't say, so I don't know). In Seattle there might be 20,000 people of various races per 100,000. That would mean hate crimes are much less prevalent per head of population than where writer lives. Ditto with his list of worst cities. You need data that shows per head of population. I mean he cites the biggest cities in the US. Of course they are going to have the most crime. Duh. As study after study has shown, crime is directly related to poverty. You take out all the crime in low socio economic parts of cities and the stats will be similar to your rural Utopias. But, right-wing loons don't want to know about that. They want everybody to look after themselves. It's all about me, me, me. Fuck everybody else. Well, unless you talk about women's bodies. Then they want the final word.

 

[Dr Grump]

Your positions are emotional constructs, not logical, educated positions. You present them with great conviction but all that shows is how emotionally invested you are in them.

You have never attempted to actually defend your statements with anything beyond your ill-formed opinions and biases and when presented with argument fatal to your viewpoints, you dissemble and divert and descend into a circle-jerk of logical fallacy or just simply dismiss the relevance of the proofs I provide (like you hilariously do with the Supreme Court).

Hey, I have said time and time again mine is a philosophical argument. I'm not even arguing about the USSC or your second -although that HAS to come into the argument if I am talking to a US citizen. My plank is this - do I think a country is more civilised without it being awash with guns and people walking around with the ability to have a gun strapped to their waste (CCW)? Yes I do. Do I think a country awash with guns is a terrible place to live? Yes I do. Do I think owning a gun in a civilised society is a privilege not a right? Absolutely. Remember, when we started this debate you cited instances well before the US became a country. Just because something was the norm 1400 years ago, and was a right then, doesn't mean it should be a right now. Ie, slavery. Now, you may like living in a country awash with firearms citing you want to protect your family, or from a tyrannical govt. If you were in Libya, or the Congo, your argument would be sound. In the US? PPffftt. Time and time again, I see these Youtube auditors and firearms owners strutting - and they are strutting - like big men, tough guys. That is reason most love being armed. They love the power it presents. Deny it all you like. And that is exactly what Jim Jeffries was saying his routine. Just be honest about it. You talk to any conservative American, and they talk with fondness and and air of almost 'what life used to be' where they could walk around cock of the walk with their peashooters by their side. Me? I just say, 'grow the fuck up'.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I'm not even arguing about the USSC or your second

Neither are conservatives.

For conservatives it’s the aspirational/political second amendment, having nothing to do with the Constitution, Second Amendment, or the law.

As a fact of law, the Second Amendment is not ‘absolute’ – and President Biden is correct.

 

[2aguy]

1) touche
2) Yeah. Duplicitous List of mass shootings in the United States in 2021 - Wikipedia
3) That is where I see it differently. Remember, I'm talking philosophically, not US law. I see it as a privilege, not a right. Just like driving a car.
4) Yep, as I said the US is a violent place. It is in a death spiral due to the amount of firearms you have there (IMO)
5) For a start it is Briebart - you couldn't get a more partisan hack site if you tried. The stats are skewed in so many ways i don't even know where to start but I'll give you two examples off the bat. It says that where the writer lives there were 2.9 hate crimes per 100,000 people while in Portland there were 5.75 per 100,000. For a start that number is almost in the margin of error, but more importantly he doesn't give context. ie, there could be 50 black people, 30 Hispanics and 20 other people per 100,000 people living in his area (he doesn't say, so I don't know). In Seattle there might be 20,000 people of various races per 100,000. That would mean hate crimes are much less prevalent per head of population than where writer lives. Ditto with his list of worst cities. You need data that shows per head of population. I mean he cites the biggest cities in the US. Of course they are going to have the most crime. Duh. As study after study has shown, crime is directly related to poverty. You take out all the crime in low socio economic parts of cities and the stats will be similar to your rural Utopias. But, right-wing loons don't want to know about that. They want everybody to look after themselves. It's all about me, me, me. Fuck everybody else. Well, unless you talk about women's bodies. Then they want the final word.

There are over 330 million people in the U.S.......how many of those committed mass public shootings in the U.S.....?

6.....

Out of over 330 million Americans.....

How many killed?

73....

Lawn mowers kill between 90-100 people every year.

Deer kill 200 people a year.

Ladders kill 300 people a year.

Bathtubs kill 350 people a year.

Cars kill over 39,000 people a year.....

Using the rarest of rare events to push gun control is stupid and moronic...but you know you can scare uninformed Americans with those words..."Mass Public shooting."

How many guns are there in the U.S?

600 million guns.

Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to stop rapes, robberies, murders, beatings and stabbings....and stopping mass public shootings......

So.......I think we will keep our guns.....since the Ukrainians are currently learning the really hard lesson as to why you don't give up your guns in the first place....

And the countries you point to?

They disarmed their people in the 1920s and 30s...then murdered 15 million of them when the socialists took control.....

Again...we will keep our guns to protect us from leftists like you.

 

[2aguy]

Hey, I have said time and time again mine is a philosophical argument. I'm not even arguing about the USSC or your second -although that HAS to come into the argument if I am talking to a US citizen. My plank is this - do I think a country is more civilised without it being awash with guns and people walking around with the ability to have a gun strapped to their waste (CCW)? Yes I do. Do I think a country awash with guns is a terrible place to live? Yes I do. Do I think owning a gun in a civilised society is a privilege not a right? Absolutely. Remember, when we started this debate you cited instances well before the US became a country. Just because something was the norm 1400 years ago, and was a right then, doesn't mean it should be a right now. Ie, slavery. Now, you may like living in a country awash with firearms citing you want to protect your family, or from a tyrannical govt. If you were in Libya, or the Congo, your argument would be sound. In the US? PPffftt. Time and time again, I see these Youtube auditors and firearms owners strutting - and they are strutting - like big men, tough guys. That is reason most love being armed. They love the power it presents. Deny it all you like. And that is exactly what Jim Jeffries was saying his routine. Just be honest about it. You talk to any conservative American, and they talk with fondness and and air of almost 'what life used to be' where they could walk around cock of the walk with their peashooters by their side. Me? I just say, 'grow the fuck up'.

The civilized societies you love?

They disarmed their people in the 1920s and 30s....they then went on to murder 15 million innocent men, women and children...

You European types really have nothing to teach Americans as far as arms control goes....we saw what you did after you took away your guns...we see what Russia is doing to Ukraine......

You have nothing to teach us...

 

[2aguy]

1) touche
2) Yeah. Duplicitous List of mass shootings in the United States in 2021 - Wikipedia
3) That is where I see it differently. Remember, I'm talking philosophically, not US law. I see it as a privilege, not a right. Just like driving a car.
4) Yep, as I said the US is a violent place. It is in a death spiral due to the amount of firearms you have there (IMO)
5) For a start it is Briebart - you couldn't get a more partisan hack site if you tried. The stats are skewed in so many ways i don't even know where to start but I'll give you two examples off the bat. It says that where the writer lives there were 2.9 hate crimes per 100,000 people while in Portland there were 5.75 per 100,000. For a start that number is almost in the margin of error, but more importantly he doesn't give context. ie, there could be 50 black people, 30 Hispanics and 20 other people per 100,000 people living in his area (he doesn't say, so I don't know). In Seattle there might be 20,000 people of various races per 100,000. That would mean hate crimes are much less prevalent per head of population than where writer lives. Ditto with his list of worst cities. You need data that shows per head of population. I mean he cites the biggest cities in the US. Of course they are going to have the most crime. Duh. As study after study has shown, crime is directly related to poverty. You take out all the crime in low socio economic parts of cities and the stats will be similar to your rural Utopias. But, right-wing loons don't want to know about that. They want everybody to look after themselves. It's all about me, me, me. Fuck everybody else. Well, unless you talk about women's bodies. Then they want the final word.

No..... Fatherless homes create poverty.........poverty creates crime, then crime takes over and solidifies generational poverty........

 

[Dr Grump]

The civilized societies you love?

They disarmed their people in the 1920s and 30s....they then went on to murder 15 million innocent men, women and children...

You European types really have nothing to teach Americans as far as arms control goes....we saw what you did after you took away your guns...we see what Russia is doing to Ukraine......

You have nothing to teach us...

We're going back 100 years. Western Europe has moved on. So should you.

 

[Dr Grump]

No..... Fatherless homes create poverty.........poverty creates crime, then crime takes over and solidifies generational poverty........

ie, black families right? You don't have a clue do you...(not a question, thus no question mark).

 

[Open Bolt]

But the declaratory clause has no legal operation to mandate or compel anything.

I read the Second Amendment's declaration that a well regulated militia is necessary, as a mandate to compel the government to always have a well regulated militia.

 

[Open Bolt]

You and I will just have to disagree on having guns as being a civil right. Nothing civil about it IMO.

The legal history is quite clear that the right to keep and bear arms is a longstanding civil liberty.

What I find interesting with the most ardent gun nuts is that they try and claim they are the final word on the legal, moral and "i know the spirit of how the constitution is meant to be interpreted" (and the irony is not lost on me that that interpretation has been revisited in the USSC continuously since the US became independent) of the constitution. What I do know is, that it is a lot more complicated than that.

There may be parts of the Constitution that have complexities.

There may be parts of the Constitution that have gray areas where several different rulings could be legitimate and the courts have to choose one.

But there are also parts of the Constitution where the facts are clear. And people who claim that the facts are not clear in those cases are being disingenuous. It is perfectly reasonable for people to complain that their rights are being violated when they are in fact being violated.

My plank is this - do I think a country is more civilised without it being awash with guns and people walking around with the ability to have a gun strapped to their waste (CCW)? Yes I do. Do I think a country awash with guns is a terrible place to live? Yes I do. Do I think owning a gun in a civilised society is a privilege not a right? Absolutely.

I reject your civilization and choose freedom instead.

Remember, when we started this debate you cited instances well before the US became a country. Just because something was the norm 1400 years ago, and was a right then, doesn't mean it should be a right now. Ie, slavery.

I reject the notion that freedom is something only for our ancestors.

Freedom today and freedom forever!

Now, you may like living in a country awash with firearms citing you want to protect your family, or from a tyrannical govt. If you were in Libya, or the Congo, your argument would be sound. In the US? PPffftt. Time and time again, I see these Youtube auditors and firearms owners strutting - and they are strutting - like big men, tough guys. That is reason most love being armed. They love the power it presents. Deny it all you like. And that is exactly what Jim Jeffries was saying his routine. Just be honest about it. You talk to any conservative American, and they talk with fondness and and air of almost 'what life used to be' where they could walk around cock of the walk with their peashooters by their side.

Liking guns is more than enough reason for having guns.

Me? I just say, 'grow the fuck up'.

Liking guns is not a sign of immaturity.

 

[Open Bolt]

That’s a lie.
No firearm regulatory measure proposed by ‘progressives’ violates the Second Amendment.
The Supreme Court has never ruled on the Constitutionality of assault weapon bans.
With regard to assault weapon bans and magazine capacity restrictions, you may accuse ‘progressives’ of advocating for bad and ineffective laws, but you may not accuse them of advocating for ‘violating’ the Second Amendment.

A violation of the Constitution is a violation even if the Supreme Court has not yet ruled that it is a violation. So I can indeed accuse progressives of trying to violate people's civil liberties.

A couple of nitpicks:

Untrue statements are not necessary lies. Malicious intent is required before an untrue statement becomes a lie. An honest mistake does not make something a lie, and neither does honest disagreement about something.

Assault weapons were all but banned some 88 years ago. Progressives should not be allowed to get away with mislabeling a gun as an assault weapon when it is not. Laws against pistol grips should be referred to as laws against pistol grips.

This is a lie – no one seeks to ‘ban’ guns; this is yet another example of the ignorance, stupidity, dishonesty, and demagoguery typical of the right.

That is incorrect. There are people out there who do want to ban guns.

 

[Open Bolt]

The militia can be called up into federal service.

But only for three limited purposes: upholding the law, suppressing insurrections, and repelling invasions.

None of those limited purposes includes service outside US borders.

The National Guard as a part of the Militia has been there for 119 years and no one has attacked it for being unconstitutional.

The National Guard is not part of the militia. They are part of a standing army.

There is nothing unconstitutional about the National Guard. They just are not the militia.

You say it doesn't make it so, but it is so, whether you like it or not.

That is incorrect. The Framers intended the militia to make a standing army as unnecessary as possible. To say that a standing army counts as the militia goes against their clear intent.

Also, militiamen do not serve outside US borders, and are allowed to take their weapons home with them.

The right to keep arms protects the right of individuals to own weapons. It does NOT protect the right to use that gun in foreplay, playing monopoly, sticking it on a sandwich, or self defense.
You might be able to use it for self defense along with a whole host of other things. That doesn't mean it's protect IN THE SECOND AMENDMENT.

The right to own a gun is more than enough. Anyone who owns a gun has the right to use that gun to defend their home.

The Second Amendment is not about INDIVIDUAL self defense. It's about COLLECTIVE self defense.

Are you aware that you are making an argument for the general public to own weapons like grenades and machine guns?

What sorts of weapons do you think are used in collective self defense?

Prove to me that the founders were focusing on self defense in the US constitution prior to 1793.

Well, they created the Ninth Amendment. That shows that they wanted all rights to be protected.

They knew very well that the right to self defense existed and would therefore be included in anything that covers all rights.

 

[Dr Grump]

I reject your civilization and choose freedom instead.

Liking guns is more than enough reason for having guns.

Liking guns is not a sign of immaturity.

1) I have freedom. More than you. I'm not the one so scared about my society I need to have guns to protect myself. I call that serfdom.
2) Not it is not.
3) In the context of the vast majority of MEN wanting them because they think it makes them more manly? Absolutely it is immature. There is a reason most Western countries have rejected that culture.

 

[frigidweirdo]

But only for three limited purposes: upholding the law, suppressing insurrections, and repelling invasions.

None of those limited purposes includes service outside US borders.



The National Guard is not part of the militia. They are part of a standing army.

There is nothing unconstitutional about the National Guard. They just are not the militia.



That is incorrect. The Framers intended the militia to make a standing army as unnecessary as possible. To say that a standing army counts as the militia goes against their clear intent.

Also, militiamen do not serve outside US borders, and are allowed to take their weapons home with them.



The right to own a gun is more than enough. Anyone who owns a gun has the right to use that gun to defend their home.



Are you aware that you are making an argument for the general public to own weapons like grenades and machine guns?

What sorts of weapons do you think are used in collective self defense?



Well, they created the Ninth Amendment. That shows that they wanted all rights to be protected.

They knew very well that the right to self defense existed and would therefore be included in anything that covers all rights.

And "upholding the law" is a rather LARGE area.

I agree, the militia should not be used outside of the US, but it is. Just because it is used like that, doesn't mean it isn't the militia. Essentially they get around it by calling it up into federal service and then making it a part of the US reserve.

It's like saying that because they don't always respect the right to freedom of speech, that freedom of speech no longer exists.

Maybe a person who owns a gun, protected by the US second amendment, has a right to defend themselves with that gun, not protected by the US second amendment.

The point here is the meaning of the second amendment. Self defense almost certainly exists, it just isn't protected by the second amendment.

We know this, because we have massive amounts of evidence that show this.

It doesn't matter whether you think I'm making an argument for the ownership of machine guns and the like or not. The reality is that this area of the argument is SUBJECTIVE. Agreement is going to be hard to come by.

Why? Because the 2A protects the right to own "arms". It does NOT protect the right to own ALL guns. The 2A is essentially a LIMIT on the Federal Govt. If you can get a hand gun, you have "arms". If the federal govt doesn't stop the sale of handguns but bans machine guns, have they stopped you from owning "arms"? No. They have not. You still have arms.

Which is where you argument because weak, but again, subjective.

Yes, they created the 9th and the right to self defense is far, far, far more likely to be in the 9th than the 2nd.

 

[Open Bolt]

1) I have freedom. More than you.

No you don't. Free people have the right to keep and bear arms.

I'm not the one so scared about my society I need to have guns to protect myself.

No one over here is scared either.

This thing about "need" is serf speak. Free people have guns because we choose to have them. Need is irrelevant.

2) Not it is not.

Yes it is. If a free person chooses to have guns, that is all that matters. Free people do not have to provide justification.

It is only serfs who have to provide justification before they are allowed to have guns.

3) In the context of the vast majority of MEN wanting them because they think it makes them more manly? Absolutely it is immature.

That is not why people choose to have guns. That is the bigoted stereotype of a freedom hater.

 

[Open Bolt]

And "upholding the law" is a rather LARGE area.

It only applies where US law exists (which means within US borders).

I agree, the militia should not be used outside of the US, but it is. Just because it is used like that, doesn't mean it isn't the militia. Essentially they get around it by calling it up into federal service and then making it a part of the US reserve.

Making the National Guard a standing army means that they are not the militia.

It doesn't matter whether you think I'm making an argument for the ownership of machine guns and the like or not. The reality is that this area of the argument is SUBJECTIVE.

There is nothing subjective about it. Collective defense includes repelling foreign invasions. That means a level of weaponry that would enable people to repel a foreign invasion.

If you only allow a level of firepower that is nowhere near sufficient for collective defense, then you are violating the right to keep and bear arms.

Why? Because the 2A protects the right to own "arms". It does NOT protect the right to own ALL guns. The 2A is essentially a LIMIT on the Federal Govt. If you can get a hand gun, you have "arms". If the federal govt doesn't stop the sale of handguns but bans machine guns, have they stopped you from owning "arms"? No. They have not. You still have arms.

That is incorrect. Collective defense means enough firepower to repel a foreign invasion.

That means grenades and machine guns. Handguns alone are not going to repel a foreign invasion.

 

[frigidweirdo]

It only applies where US law exists (which means within US borders).



Making the National Guard a standing army means that they are not the militia.



There is nothing subjective about it. Collective defense includes repelling foreign invasions. That means a level of weaponry that would enable people to repel a foreign invasion.

If you only allow a level of firepower that is nowhere near sufficient for collective defense, then you are violating the right to keep and bear arms.



That is incorrect. Collective defense means enough firepower to repel a foreign invasion.

That means grenades and machine guns. Handguns alone are not going to repel a foreign invasion.

The National Guard is not a standing army. The people in the National Guard are mostly people with other jobs. Officers can be appointed by the states, this is how it's done, if I'm not wrong.

The Second Amendment needs to be seen from the right angle. As I said, it prevents the US federal government from stopping individuals being able to own "arms". It doesn't really mention what types of arms.

The reality is the militia was designed to have people with their own weaponry that would be every day weaponry for hunting, what normal people would have. Not cannon or other such weaponry used in high tech warfare of the day. So, from both points there I think you're wrong.

Collective defense means people getting together to defend themselves. Take a look at the Ukraine. People did not have all the weaponry they needed, but they still got it from somewhere. This is the reality of modern warfare. Also with the National Guard, individuals do not need F-16s, the National Guard provides this.