Should our Constitution's 2nd Amendment be amended ... ?

[danielpalos]

I realize you aren't a citizen, but in the United States, there is no right to drive and regulations exist to regulate driving. Owning firearms is a right that shall not be infringed. Just as voting is a right.

Having a militia with the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Doesn't say anything about the individual....

One last time, moron. While the militia is mentioned in the subordinate clause, the right of the PEOPLE (individuals) shall not be infringed. Why do fools such as yourself ignore that?

Only the People who are a well regulated militia, dear.

refuted and incorrect, little missy

with no Thing but fallacy; sorry; too inferior in Any superior Court.

 

[martybegan]

I realize you aren't a citizen, but in the United States, there is no right to drive and regulations exist to regulate driving. Owning firearms is a right that shall not be infringed. Just as voting is a right.

Having a militia with the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Doesn't say anything about the individual....

One last time, moron. While the militia is mentioned in the subordinate clause, the right of the PEOPLE (individuals) shall not be infringed. Why do fools such as yourself ignore that?

Only the People who are a well regulated militia, dear.

Nope. The people retain the right to arms, the States retain the right to call militias. Just because the States don't do it anymore doesn't mean the people lose their RKBA.

dear, rights in purely private property are secured in State Constitutions, no federal involvement at all.

Where did you come up with that crap?

 

[danielpalos]

Having a militia with the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Doesn't say anything about the individual....

One last time, moron. While the militia is mentioned in the subordinate clause, the right of the PEOPLE (individuals) shall not be infringed. Why do fools such as yourself ignore that?

Only the People who are a well regulated militia, dear.

Nope. The people retain the right to arms, the States retain the right to call militias. Just because the States don't do it anymore doesn't mean the people lose their RKBA.

dear, rights in purely private property are secured in State Constitutions, no federal involvement at all.

Where did you come up with that crap?

the same place where they have clues and Causes.

 

[LOki]

I realize you aren't a citizen, but in the United States, there is no right to drive and regulations exist to regulate driving. Owning firearms is a right that shall not be infringed. Just as voting is a right.

Having a militia with the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Doesn't say anything about the individual....

One last time, moron. While the militia is mentioned in the subordinate clause, the right of the PEOPLE (individuals) shall not be infringed. Why do fools such as yourself ignore that?

Only the People who are a well regulated militia, dear.

You are wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

 

[martybegan]

One last time, moron. While the militia is mentioned in the subordinate clause, the right of the PEOPLE (individuals) shall not be infringed. Why do fools such as yourself ignore that?

Only the People who are a well regulated militia, dear.

Nope. The people retain the right to arms, the States retain the right to call militias. Just because the States don't do it anymore doesn't mean the people lose their RKBA.

dear, rights in purely private property are secured in State Constitutions, no federal involvement at all.

Where did you come up with that crap?

the same place where they have clues and Causes.

Oh god, that crap again.

Just realize that your points are only cognizant in your own muddled mind. The rest of us think you are a muddled dimwit.

 

[danielpalos]

I realize you aren't a citizen, but in the United States, there is no right to drive and regulations exist to regulate driving. Owning firearms is a right that shall not be infringed. Just as voting is a right.

Having a militia with the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Doesn't say anything about the individual....

One last time, moron. While the militia is mentioned in the subordinate clause, the right of the PEOPLE (individuals) shall not be infringed. Why do fools such as yourself ignore that?

Only the People who are a well regulated militia, dear.

You are wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

stop being such a shill; the People are the Militia.

 

[LOki]

I realize you aren't a citizen, but in the United States, there is no right to drive and regulations exist to regulate driving. Owning firearms is a right that shall not be infringed. Just as voting is a right.

Having a militia with the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Doesn't say anything about the individual....

One last time, moron. While the militia is mentioned in the subordinate clause, the right of the PEOPLE (individuals) shall not be infringed. Why do fools such as yourself ignore that?

Only the People who are a well regulated militia, dear.

You are wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

stop being such a shill; the People are the Militia.

Correct. Hence, you are wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

 

[Dr Grump]

At the end of the day folks, the second amendment was written at a time when times were a lot more uncertain.

Not relavent.

The borders of the US weren't even decided and there was no standing army. That was the intent. Get everybody together if the shit hit the fan and make sure they are armed.

OK. Still not relavent.

Times have changed. It's time you guys did too.

I can't wait for your explanation for this.

Just because you say it's irrelevant doesn't make it so. You have to look at context and why something came about. That's all that I'm doing...

No. You're not. That's why it's not relevant. Otherwise, you'd demonstrate that relavency.

Absolutely I am. The second was written as a thing of its time. Things were uncertain. Borders were uncertain. New territories needed exploring. A young US had to be careful of who its European friends were, and enemies for that matter.

I see the second as nothing more than the founding fathers saying "Hey, we're a young vulnerable country. A good way to respond to any external threats is to make sure we're armed and ready. That being the case, everybody's allowed a firearm to protect their country and we'll come together to fight any prick that decides to take us on"

Thus the second was born. ...And the US now has professional armed forces so you don't need a militia...Of course, the second's been hijacked by those with their own agendas...

 

[Dr Grump]

I realize you aren't a citizen, but in the United States, there is no right to drive and regulations exist to regulate driving. Owning firearms is a right that shall not be infringed. Just as voting is a right.

Having a militia with the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Doesn't say anything about the individual....

The people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, what the militia part is about is saying the feds cannot ban States from having their own armed forces.

Two different rights in the same amendment, but one allows the other, i.e. the people's RKBA allows the States to call militias.

See my last to Loki above. I disagree with you interpretation and anybody, or any body (USSC) that says different.....

 

[Dr Grump]

Nope. It's people. If they don't have guns, they'll use knifes and swords and hammers and bricks.

And it's so much harder to outrun a knife, hammer or brick compared to a bullet, right?

My Gosh, you are stupid.

Well, if you think you can outrun a bullet then there's somebody in this two-person conversation who is stupid all right and it's not me.

 

[Dr Grump]

He and you are wrong and the Supreme Court has ruled you are wrong. Stop wasting our time with your stupidity.

The USSC is far from infallible. At the end of the day all they have done is interpret what they think the FF's meant by the second. Doesn't mean it is what they say it is. Generally a lot of their decisions are made from a political perspective. The USSC is only as neutral as the justices on it, and as they are political appointees as opposed to being the best at what they do, a lot of their judgements are nothing more than what their own political leanings are...

 

[martybegan]

I realize you aren't a citizen, but in the United States, there is no right to drive and regulations exist to regulate driving. Owning firearms is a right that shall not be infringed. Just as voting is a right.

Having a militia with the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Doesn't say anything about the individual....

The people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, what the militia part is about is saying the feds cannot ban States from having their own armed forces.

Two different rights in the same amendment, but one allows the other, i.e. the people's RKBA allows the States to call militias.

See my last to Loki above. I disagree with you interpretation and anybody, or any body (USSC) that says different.....

The intent was to say that government cannot control the arms rights of both the citizens and the States. It was the opposite of European thought on the topic, which was based on the feudal concept of only nobility being given the right to arms.

 

[LOki]

At the end of the day folks, the second amendment was written at a time when times were a lot more uncertain.

Not relavent.

The borders of the US weren't even decided and there was no standing army. That was the intent. Get everybody together if the shit hit the fan and make sure they are armed.

OK. Still not relavent.

Times have changed. It's time you guys did too.

I can't wait for your explanation for this.

Just because you say it's irrelevant doesn't make it so. You have to look at context and why something came about. That's all that I'm doing...

No. You're not. That's why it's not relevant. Otherwise, you'd demonstrate that relavency.

Absolutely I am.

No. You're not.

The second was written as a thing of its time.

Meaningless.

Things were uncertain.

Not relevant.

Borders were uncertain.

Not relevant.

New territories needed exploring.

Not relevant.

A young US had to be careful of who its European friends were, and enemies for that matter.

Not relevant.

I see the second as nothing more than the founding fathers saying "Hey, we're a young vulnerable country. A good way to respond to any external threats is to make sure we're armed and ready. That being the case, everybody's allowed a firearm to protect their country and we'll come together to fight any prick that decides to take us on"

Your premise is faulty. The the proper premise begins with the assertion that the enumerated rights (and others) exist, they are not granted... our rights are the pre-existing condition upon which our constitution is validated.

You see, you have it backwards... the Constitution sets forth what the government is allowed to do, and what it is not allowed to do. The People empower the government; We give the permissions...WE are the ones who "allow" the government to have guns and such. Not the other way around.

The People are not "...allowed a firearm..."--the notion is meaningless. The Right of The People to Keep and Bear Arms exists regardless of permission, and it "...Shall Not Be Infringed."

There's a way to address what's "allowed", and there's a way to address what's not "allowed." And you've got it wrong.

Thus the second was born. ...And the US now has professional armed forces so you don't need a militia...

On top of all the above, the argument from (does not) need is invalid for all the obvious reasons.

Of course, the second's been hijacked by those with their own agendas...

Demonstrate "hijacked". Submit the "agendas" you refer to.

 

[Dan Daly]

I realize you aren't a citizen, but in the United States, there is no right to drive and regulations exist to regulate driving. Owning firearms is a right that shall not be infringed. Just as voting is a right.

Having a militia with the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Doesn't say anything about the individual....

One last time, moron. While the militia is mentioned in the subordinate clause, the right of the PEOPLE (individuals) shall not be infringed. Why do fools such as yourself ignore that?

Only the People who are a well regulated militia, dear.

No dear. I know that you probably subscribe to the notion that a lie told often enough becomes the truth...but that only works if you can prevent the truth from being presented in rebuttal. In addition to all the overwhelming rebuttal to your lie by people here, SCOTUS has also rebutted you quite well in Heller.

 

[Dan Daly]

At the end of the day folks, the second amendment was written at a time when times were a lot more uncertain.

Not relavent.

The borders of the US weren't even decided and there was no standing army. That was the intent. Get everybody together if the shit hit the fan and make sure they are armed.

OK. Still not relavent.

Times have changed. It's time you guys did too.

I can't wait for your explanation for this.

Just because you say it's irrelevant doesn't make it so. You have to look at context and why something came about. That's all that I'm doing...

No. You're not. That's why it's not relevant. Otherwise, you'd demonstrate that relavency.

Absolutely I am. The second was written as a thing of its time. Things were uncertain. Borders were uncertain. New territories needed exploring. A young US had to be careful of who its European friends were, and enemies for that matter.

I see the second as nothing more than the founding fathers saying "Hey, we're a young vulnerable country. A good way to respond to any external threats is to make sure we're armed and ready. That being the case, everybody's allowed a firearm to protect their country and we'll come together to fight any prick that decides to take us on"

Thus the second was born. ...And the US now has professional armed forces so you don't need a militia...Of course, the second's been hijacked by those with their own agendas...

Those who don't know history are doomed to look foolish. We DID have a professional military at the time...in fact the Constitution...which of course was ratified BEFORE its amendments, makes note of both the professional Army and Navy AND the Militia in Article 2, Section 2 (bolding and coloring for emphasis is mine):

"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;"

Despite our aversion to standing armies, the founders were not idiots and knew that we needed a small, professional armed forces as the core of our national defense, which could be augmented, when needed, by the militia of the states.

The 2nd Amendment was written to guarantee a basic human right that predates governments and constitutions, using necessity of a well-regulated militia as an augment to the professional military as a primary reason for doing so.

"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."

 

[danielpalos]

At the end of the day folks, the second amendment was written at a time when times were a lot more uncertain.

Not relavent.

The borders of the US weren't even decided and there was no standing army. That was the intent. Get everybody together if the shit hit the fan and make sure they are armed.

OK. Still not relavent.

Times have changed. It's time you guys did too.

I can't wait for your explanation for this.

Just because you say it's irrelevant doesn't make it so. You have to look at context and why something came about. That's all that I'm doing...

No. You're not. That's why it's not relevant. Otherwise, you'd demonstrate that relavency.

Absolutely I am.

No. You're not.

The second was written as a thing of its time.

Meaningless.

Things were uncertain.

Not relevant.

Borders were uncertain.

Not relevant.

New territories needed exploring.

Not relevant.

A young US had to be careful of who its European friends were, and enemies for that matter.

Not relevant.

I see the second as nothing more than the founding fathers saying "Hey, we're a young vulnerable country. A good way to respond to any external threats is to make sure we're armed and ready. That being the case, everybody's allowed a firearm to protect their country and we'll come together to fight any prick that decides to take us on"

Your premise is faulty. The the proper premise begins with the assertion that the enumerated rights (and others) exist, they are not granted... our rights are the pre-existing condition upon which our constitution is validated.

You see, you have it backwards... the Constitution sets forth what the government is allowed to do, and what it is not allowed to do. The People empower the government; We give the permissions...WE are the ones who "allow" the government to have guns and such. Not the other way around.

The People are not "...allowed a firearm..."--the notion is meaningless. The Right of The People to Keep and Bear Arms exists regardless of permission, and it "...Shall Not Be Infringed."

There's a way to address what's "allowed", and there's a way to address what's not "allowed." And you've got it wrong.

Thus the second was born. ...And the US now has professional armed forces so you don't need a militia...

On top of all the above, the argument from (does not) need is invalid for all the obvious reasons.

Of course, the second's been hijacked by those with their own agendas...

Demonstrate "hijacked". Submit the "agendas" you refer to.

Dear, rights in private property, including the class called Arms, is secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

 

[martybegan]

Not relavent.

OK. Still not relavent.

I can't wait for your explanation for this.

Just because you say it's irrelevant doesn't make it so. You have to look at context and why something came about. That's all that I'm doing...

No. You're not. That's why it's not relevant. Otherwise, you'd demonstrate that relavency.

Absolutely I am.

No. You're not.

The second was written as a thing of its time.

Meaningless.

Things were uncertain.

Not relevant.

Borders were uncertain.

Not relevant.

New territories needed exploring.

Not relevant.

A young US had to be careful of who its European friends were, and enemies for that matter.

Not relevant.

I see the second as nothing more than the founding fathers saying "Hey, we're a young vulnerable country. A good way to respond to any external threats is to make sure we're armed and ready. That being the case, everybody's allowed a firearm to protect their country and we'll come together to fight any prick that decides to take us on"

Your premise is faulty. The the proper premise begins with the assertion that the enumerated rights (and others) exist, they are not granted... our rights are the pre-existing condition upon which our constitution is validated.

You see, you have it backwards... the Constitution sets forth what the government is allowed to do, and what it is not allowed to do. The People empower the government; We give the permissions...WE are the ones who "allow" the government to have guns and such. Not the other way around.

The People are not "...allowed a firearm..."--the notion is meaningless. The Right of The People to Keep and Bear Arms exists regardless of permission, and it "...Shall Not Be Infringed."

There's a way to address what's "allowed", and there's a way to address what's not "allowed." And you've got it wrong.

Thus the second was born. ...And the US now has professional armed forces so you don't need a militia...

On top of all the above, the argument from (does not) need is invalid for all the obvious reasons.

Of course, the second's been hijacked by those with their own agendas...

Demonstrate "hijacked". Submit the "agendas" you refer to.

Dear, rights in private property, including the class called Arms, is secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

More gibberish from the biggest oxygen thief on the site.

 

[danielpalos]

Just because you say it's irrelevant doesn't make it so. You have to look at context and why something came about. That's all that I'm doing...

No. You're not. That's why it's not relevant. Otherwise, you'd demonstrate that relavency.

Absolutely I am.

No. You're not.

The second was written as a thing of its time.

Meaningless.

Things were uncertain.

Not relevant.

Borders were uncertain.

Not relevant.

New territories needed exploring.

Not relevant.

A young US had to be careful of who its European friends were, and enemies for that matter.

Not relevant.

I see the second as nothing more than the founding fathers saying "Hey, we're a young vulnerable country. A good way to respond to any external threats is to make sure we're armed and ready. That being the case, everybody's allowed a firearm to protect their country and we'll come together to fight any prick that decides to take us on"

Your premise is faulty. The the proper premise begins with the assertion that the enumerated rights (and others) exist, they are not granted... our rights are the pre-existing condition upon which our constitution is validated.

You see, you have it backwards... the Constitution sets forth what the government is allowed to do, and what it is not allowed to do. The People empower the government; We give the permissions...WE are the ones who "allow" the government to have guns and such. Not the other way around.

The People are not "...allowed a firearm..."--the notion is meaningless. The Right of The People to Keep and Bear Arms exists regardless of permission, and it "...Shall Not Be Infringed."

There's a way to address what's "allowed", and there's a way to address what's not "allowed." And you've got it wrong.

Thus the second was born. ...And the US now has professional armed forces so you don't need a militia...

On top of all the above, the argument from (does not) need is invalid for all the obvious reasons.

Of course, the second's been hijacked by those with their own agendas...

Demonstrate "hijacked". Submit the "agendas" you refer to.

Dear, rights in private property, including the class called Arms, is secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

More gibberish from the biggest oxygen thief on the site.

shill.

 

[martybegan]

No. You're not. That's why it's not relevant. Otherwise, you'd demonstrate that relavency.

Absolutely I am.

No. You're not.

The second was written as a thing of its time.

Meaningless.

Things were uncertain.

Not relevant.

Borders were uncertain.

Not relevant.

New territories needed exploring.

Not relevant.

A young US had to be careful of who its European friends were, and enemies for that matter.

Not relevant.

I see the second as nothing more than the founding fathers saying "Hey, we're a young vulnerable country. A good way to respond to any external threats is to make sure we're armed and ready. That being the case, everybody's allowed a firearm to protect their country and we'll come together to fight any prick that decides to take us on"

Your premise is faulty. The the proper premise begins with the assertion that the enumerated rights (and others) exist, they are not granted... our rights are the pre-existing condition upon which our constitution is validated.

You see, you have it backwards... the Constitution sets forth what the government is allowed to do, and what it is not allowed to do. The People empower the government; We give the permissions...WE are the ones who "allow" the government to have guns and such. Not the other way around.

The People are not "...allowed a firearm..."--the notion is meaningless. The Right of The People to Keep and Bear Arms exists regardless of permission, and it "...Shall Not Be Infringed."

There's a way to address what's "allowed", and there's a way to address what's not "allowed." And you've got it wrong.

Thus the second was born. ...And the US now has professional armed forces so you don't need a militia...

On top of all the above, the argument from (does not) need is invalid for all the obvious reasons.

Of course, the second's been hijacked by those with their own agendas...

Demonstrate "hijacked". Submit the "agendas" you refer to.

Dear, rights in private property, including the class called Arms, is secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

More gibberish from the biggest oxygen thief on the site.

shill.

Wow, nice response. I feel cheated since shills are supposed to be paid, and so far I haven't gotten a dime.

 

[danielpalos]

neither have i, and i don't resort to more fallacies, than those of the opposing view, simply due to a social clue and a social Cause.