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

[martybegan]

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.

There's that gibberish again.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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...

Rather than whine and cry abound the 2nd -- amend it. Grow balls, get off your ass and get rid of it.
Else, accept that it is there, that it does not mean what you want it to mean, and stop whining.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.....

That is, you choose to be wrong.

The right of the people.
Not the militia.
Not the people in the militia
The people.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

True.
DC v Heller was a 5-4 split decision... | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
5-4: National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (ACA individual mandate)
5-4: King V Burwell (ACA subsidies)
5-4: Obergefell v. Hodges (same sex marriage)

 

[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.

There's that gibberish again.

no dear, it is just you being incompetent.

 

[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....

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.....

That is, you choose to be wrong.

The right of the people.
Not the militia.
Not the people in the militia
The people.

dear, why do you choose to be wrong?

the People are the Militia.

 

[martybegan]

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.

There's that gibberish again.

no dear, it is just you being incompetent.

More non-answers?

I was also expecting some clue/cause/derpderpderp rant as part of your response.

You are approaching SHE WHO MUST NOT BE NAMED levels of posting stupidity.

 

[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.

There's that gibberish again.

no dear, it is just you being incompetent.

More non-answers?

I was also expecting some clue/cause/derpderpderp rant as part of your response.

You are approaching SHE WHO MUST NOT BE NAMED levels of posting stupidity.

dear, why do you choose to be wrong?

the People are the Militia.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

There's that gibberish again.

no dear, it is just you being incompetent.

More non-answers?
I was also expecting some clue/cause/derpderpderp rant as part of your response.
You are approaching SHE WHO MUST NOT BE NAMED levels of posting stupidity.

There's an ignore button...

 

[martybegan]

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.

There's that gibberish again.

no dear, it is just you being incompetent.

More non-answers?

I was also expecting some clue/cause/derpderpderp rant as part of your response.

You are approaching SHE WHO MUST NOT BE NAMED levels of posting stupidity.

dear, why do you choose to be wrong?

the People are the Militia.

Yes, and they retain the right to keep and bears arms, not the militia.

 

[martybegan]

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.

There's that gibberish again.

no dear, it is just you being incompetent.

More non-answers?
I was also expecting some clue/cause/derpderpderp rant as part of your response.
You are approaching SHE WHO MUST NOT BE NAMED levels of posting stupidity.

There's an ignore button...

Stupid like this has to be countered.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

There's that gibberish again.

no dear, it is just you being incompetent.

More non-answers?
I was also expecting some clue/cause/derpderpderp rant as part of your response.
You are approaching SHE WHO MUST NOT BE NAMED levels of posting stupidity.

There's an ignore button...

Stupid like this has to be countered.

Stupid shit like that has to be trolling, which cannot be countered.
If you don't feed the trolls, they go away.

 

[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.

There's that gibberish again.

no dear, it is just you being incompetent.

More non-answers?

I was also expecting some clue/cause/derpderpderp rant as part of your response.

You are approaching SHE WHO MUST NOT BE NAMED levels of posting stupidity.

dear, why do you choose to be wrong?

the People are the Militia.

Yes, and they retain the right to keep and bears arms, not the militia.

dear, the People are the Militia.

 

[martybegan]

There's that gibberish again.

no dear, it is just you being incompetent.

More non-answers?
I was also expecting some clue/cause/derpderpderp rant as part of your response.
You are approaching SHE WHO MUST NOT BE NAMED levels of posting stupidity.

There's an ignore button...

Stupid like this has to be countered.

Stupid shit like that has to be trolling, which cannot be countered.
If you don't feed the trolls, they go away.

thank you for the reality check. it was needed.

 

[danielpalos]

no dear, it is just you being incompetent.

More non-answers?
I was also expecting some clue/cause/derpderpderp rant as part of your response.
You are approaching SHE WHO MUST NOT BE NAMED levels of posting stupidity.

There's an ignore button...

Stupid like this has to be countered.

Stupid shit like that has to be trolling, which cannot be countered.
If you don't feed the trolls, they go away.

thank you for the reality check. it was needed.

simply jumping on the bandwagon is a fallacy as well, dears.

 

[martybegan]

More non-answers?
I was also expecting some clue/cause/derpderpderp rant as part of your response.
You are approaching SHE WHO MUST NOT BE NAMED levels of posting stupidity.

There's an ignore button...

Stupid like this has to be countered.

Stupid shit like that has to be trolling, which cannot be countered.
If you don't feed the trolls, they go away.

thank you for the reality check. it was needed.

simply jumping on the bandwagon is a fallacy as well, dears.

Shoo, adults are talking.

 

[danielpalos]

There's an ignore button...

Stupid like this has to be countered.

Stupid shit like that has to be trolling, which cannot be countered.
If you don't feed the trolls, they go away.

thank you for the reality check. it was needed.

simply jumping on the bandwagon is a fallacy as well, dears.

Shoo, adults are talking.

dears, adult conversations require adults, not children who Only have fallacy to work with.

 

[hunarcy]

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.....

That is, you choose to be wrong.

The right of the people.
Not the militia.
Not the people in the militia
The people.

dear, why do you choose to be wrong?

the People are the Militia.

Little Missy, I'm not wrong. While the people are the militia, it's not the right of the militia, it's the right of the People.

 

[hunarcy]

Stupid like this has to be countered.

Stupid shit like that has to be trolling, which cannot be countered.
If you don't feed the trolls, they go away.

thank you for the reality check. it was needed.

simply jumping on the bandwagon is a fallacy as well, dears.

Shoo, adults are talking.

dears, adult conversations require adults, not children who Only have fallacy to work with.

Little Missy, you don't have a CLUE what an adult conversation is, because you merely vomit refuted talking points as if they should be taken seriously. They are not and you are a time sucking troll.

 

[hunarcy]

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...

I thank you for your perspective from whatever backwater nation you reside in, but your opinion is worth EXACTLY what I paid to read it...nothing.