Some liberals STILL think govt can have some say in who can own a gun

[NYcarbineer]

This whole long ridiculous rant and not once was the term "well regulated" referenced in any way. Why is that?

"Well regulated" according to usage at the time, means "well drilled" and "well trained." It doesn't mean regulated in the sense of government regulations.

Oh, so we're interpreting based upon the times? Ok. Muskets for everyone then.

Really?

Muskets are mentioned in the Second?

Definitely not. But neither is 'well trained' or 'well drilled'. Thanks for proving my point.

Meaning of the phrase "well-regulated"​

The meaning of the phrase "well-regulated" in the 2nd amendment
From: Brian T. Halonen <[email protected]>

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.​

lol, the guy who wants the federal government to have virtually NO power doing his best to argue for a powerful federal court.

 

[daws101]

before you clowns get further involved in the silly pissing contest here's the amendment in question.

 

[Auld Phart]

"Well regulated" according to usage at the time, means "well drilled" and "well trained." It doesn't mean regulated in the sense of government regulations.

Oh, so we're interpreting based upon the times? Ok. Muskets for everyone then.

Really?

Muskets are mentioned in the Second?

Definitely not. But neither is 'well trained' or 'well drilled'. Thanks for proving my point.

But neither is 'well trained' or 'well drilled'.

Words I have not used.

Please reply to the person that used them.

the word in the amendment is 'arms', and even at that time, muskets were not the only arms available.

Something else the left has a little concept of

Are you serious???

You commented on my conversation with someone else and now ask me to reply to him? You inserted yourself in to the conversation asshole. Talk about not being able to read.

I entered the conversation, because it looked like a continuation of the one we had yesterday.

One you failed miserably to make sense in

 

[daws101]

Oh, so we're interpreting based upon the times? Ok. Muskets for everyone then.

Really?

Muskets are mentioned in the Second?

Definitely not. But neither is 'well trained' or 'well drilled'. Thanks for proving my point.

Words have meaning. You don't get to change them just because it's convenient for your argument.

that's ironic you do it all the time ,

Really? Provide an example.

read any thing you've posted there are several in this thread.

 

[RDD_1210]

It's all just once sentence actually. Soooo.......

Soooo.....you admit you can't read?

"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."

....is more than one sentence? Interesting.

Comment was not about it being one sentence,

A well regulated Militia,

Plain English, easy for anyone that can read, well regulated=militia

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

EVERYONE, not just militia

The sentence starts with well regulated. I didn't see a period starting a new thought.

Did you see the comma?

Sure did.

Did you see the period? Sure didn't.

 

[Auld Phart]

Soooo.....you admit you can't read?

"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."

....is more than one sentence? Interesting.

Comment was not about it being one sentence,

A well regulated Militia,

Plain English, easy for anyone that can read, well regulated=militia

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

EVERYONE, not just militia

The sentence starts with well regulated. I didn't see a period starting a new thought.

Did you see the comma?

Sure did.

Did you see the period? Sure didn't.

I repeat, you lack reading skills

 

[RDD_1210]

Oh, so we're interpreting based upon the times? Ok. Muskets for everyone then.

Really?

Muskets are mentioned in the Second?

Definitely not. But neither is 'well trained' or 'well drilled'. Thanks for proving my point.

But neither is 'well trained' or 'well drilled'.

Words I have not used.

Please reply to the person that used them.

the word in the amendment is 'arms', and even at that time, muskets were not the only arms available.

Something else the left has a little concept of

Are you serious???

You commented on my conversation with someone else and now ask me to reply to him? You inserted yourself in to the conversation asshole. Talk about not being able to read.

I entered the conversation, because it looked like a continuation of the one we had yesterday.

One you failed miserably to make sense in

LOL, failed miserably he says. You don't even know how to properly respond without getting your panties all bunched up. Keep being a douche though, it fits you well.

 

[daws101]

btw the 2nd amendment is one sentence .

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Some liberals STILL think govt can have some say in who can own a gun"

Conservatives as well, such as the late Justice Scalia.

Unless the OP believes Scalia was a liberal.

 

[RDD_1210]

"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."

....is more than one sentence? Interesting.

Comment was not about it being one sentence,

A well regulated Militia,

Plain English, easy for anyone that can read, well regulated=militia

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

EVERYONE, not just militia

The sentence starts with well regulated. I didn't see a period starting a new thought.

Did you see the comma?

Sure did.

Did you see the period? Sure didn't.

I repeat, you lack reading skills

I'm just impressed that you figured out who you're responding to. Well done Jethro.

 

[Auld Phart]

btw the 2nd amendment is one sentence .

With several separate clauses.

 

[Auld Phart]

Comment was not about it being one sentence,

Plain English, easy for anyone that can read, well regulated=militia

EVERYONE, not just militia

The sentence starts with well regulated. I didn't see a period starting a new thought.

Did you see the comma?

Sure did.

Did you see the period? Sure didn't.

I repeat, you lack reading skills

I'm just impressed that you figured out who you're responding to. Well done Jethro.

Not that hard to do, Percy

 

[RDD_1210]

btw the 2nd amendment is one sentence .

With several separate clauses.

Or as we refer to them in english, commas.

 

[RDD_1210]

The sentence starts with well regulated. I didn't see a period starting a new thought.

Did you see the comma?

Sure did.

Did you see the period? Sure didn't.

I repeat, you lack reading skills

I'm just impressed that you figured out who you're responding to. Well done Jethro.

Not that hard to do, Percy

This thread is evidence to the contrary. You actually struggle mightily with the basic concept.

 

[daws101]

btw the 2nd amendment is one sentence .

With several separate clauses.

that's pauses .
no where does it state that individuals have the right to bear personal arms , then again it does not prohibit them either and there's the rub.

 

[daws101]

Use a comma to separate the elements in a series (three or more things), including the last two. "He hit the ball, dropped the bat, and ran to first base."

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Today's liberals seem unable to take the hint.

The 2nd amendment says in modern language, that since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons cannot be taken away or restricted.

And it doesn't say "unless they aren't very nice people" or "unless they beat their wife ten years ago and did time for it" or any other such restriction. Other passages and amendments in the Constitution make exceptions ("except by due process of law" or "reasonable searches and seizures" etc.), but the Framers were careful to make sure the 2nd did not. It was a flat ban on ANY government involvement in deciding who can have a gun.

But here we have a college professor in a position to influence young minds, announcing that violent people shouldn't own gun, because of the chance that they might be violent.

Yes, it's true that someone who has been violent in the past might do it again. But it's far more often true that someone who has been violent, does it only once in a situation of extreme emotional stress, and never does it again. But there are (unconstitutional) laws in the country, saying that a person who was recklessly violent once, loses his right to keep and bear arms for the rest of his life.

If the people who wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights wanted it that way, why did they write a flat ban on such laws, into the 2nd amendment?

Could it be that they thought that government having ANY say in who can keep and bear arms, would do the nation far more harm in the long run, than letting government impose such restrictions on "some groups" of people?

Did they look over the long history of governments throughout the ages, and find that governments who had "a little" influence on the question of who can keep and bear arms, eventually started abusing that power, imposing restrictions on more and more of their populaces, and eventually leave them helpless to resist the rest of their rights being taken away?

The answer lies in what they wrote for our government. They felt it was more important for govt to be completely banned from restricting people's right to own and carry weapons, than for govt to have even the power to take that right away from "some groups" of people.

The Framers didn't leave us long treatises explaining what studies they did (although they did study many past government extensively) and why they came to the conclusions they did.

But they did leave us the conclusion. And that was to flatly ban govt from having ANY say in who can keep and bear arms.

If that college professor wants to keep professing the facts, maybe HE should study up, even half as much as the Framers did, and find the facts. Before he starts telling trusting young souls what they are.

-----------------------------------------------

This might be why Justice Clarence Thomas finally asked a question after 10 years

This might be why Justice Clarence Thomas finally asked a question after 10 years

Business Insider
By Erin Fuchs
Feb. 29, 2016
20 hours ago

The case that spurred Thomas' torrent of questions centered on whether a "reckless" domestic-assault conviction counts as a federal "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" that would carry with it a lifetime firearm ban. Thirty-four states have "reckless" assault laws that hold people accountable for carelessness that injures somebody else even when they don't necessarily intend harm, according to SCOTUSBlog.

Thomas' line of questioning seemed to suggest that he didn't favor gun bans for misdemeanor domestic-violence offenders and thought such bans could be a slippery slope leading to the denial of other constitutional rights for people convicted of misdemeanors.

"Can you give me a — this is a misdemeanor violation. It suspends a constitutional right. Can you give me another area where a misdemeanor question suspends a constitutional right?" Thomas asked Eisenstein, according to the court transcript.

The usually silent justice may have spoken up because neither side had addressed this question in the briefs they filed, according to Winkler.

"Thomas's question was an important one. Why is the right to bear arms is the only right that people lose for a misdemeanor?" Winkler asked in his email, before going ahead and answering the question himself.

"The answer is recidivism. Even though some domestic violence is only a misdemeanor, it shows a propensity to engage in violence," Winkler added. "Violent people shouldn't have access to guns."

What exceptions for freedom of the press are made in the 1st Amendment?

Scalia addressed that as well, confirming that both the First and Second Amendments were subject to reasonable restrictions by government.

 

[Auld Phart]

btw the 2nd amendment is one sentence .

With several separate clauses.

Or as we refer to them in english, commas.

Here's some help for you.

Take a week, (2 if necessary), and rejoin the conversation

 

[RDD_1210]

Use a comma to separate the elements in a series (three or more things), including the last two. "He hit the ball, dropped the bat, and ran to first base."

Save your breath. Learning and education is like kryptonite to the conservative base on this site.

 

[Auld Phart]

Use a comma to separate the elements in a series (three or more things), including the last two. "He hit the ball, dropped the bat, and ran to first base."

Now, do the same with the Second.