Ten Gun Myths and Memes-- Shot Down

[The2ndAmendment]

Guys, he even tries to spin Federalist 28, stop arguing with him. He's a political hack, he has an agenda, he doesnt' care about reasoning, he doesn't care if you Copy and Paste direct quotes two pages long. He will spin whatever he cannot disprove, argue anything that appears vague and outright lie when possible.

You are fighting a monster that cannot be slain by conventional means. He is the Lernaean Hydra, and all the other talking propoganda heads at his behest.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You can 'study' what our founders talked about before they agreed on, put to paper and signed their names to each and every words in the Constitution. But the Constitution IS THE WORDS WRITTEN ON THE PAGES. It is a contract, not an op-ed piece on Breitbart.

If one of the framers said during the debate citizens should be able to shoot slaves, would THAT become law PEA BRAIN???

Where does the Constitution say slave owners can shoot slaves?

The Constitution doesn't say slave owners can shoot slaves. Just like the Constitution doesn't say "all able bodied men between the ages of 18 and 45 constitute the militia"

No one has said that is found in the Constitution

 

[Bfgrn]

Guys, he even tries to spin Federalist 28, stop arguing with him. He's a political hack, he has an agenda, he doesnt' care about reasoning, he doesn't care if you Copy and Paste direct quotes two pages long. He will spin whatever he cannot disprove, argue anything that appears vague and outright lie when possible.

You are fighting a monster that cannot be slain by conventional means. He is the Lernaean Hydra, and all the other talking propoganda heads at his behest.

If I am trying to 'spin' Federalist 28, so are all the historians. You still never answered my question. What was the purpose of the Federalist Papers? Do you know?

 

[The Rabbi]

You can 'study' what our founders talked about before they agreed on, put to paper and signed their names to each and every words in the Constitution. But the Constitution IS THE WORDS WRITTEN ON THE PAGES. It is a contract, not an op-ed piece on Breitbart.

If one of the framers said during the debate citizens should be able to shoot slaves, would THAT become law PEA BRAIN???

Where does the Constitution say slave owners can shoot slaves?

The Constitution doesn't say slave owners can shoot slaves. Just like the Constitution doesn't say "all able bodied men between the ages of 18 and 45 constitute the militia"

Well, that's good. We can all agree on those things. I think you're making progress here.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

If I am trying to 'spin' Federalist 28, so are all the historians. You still never answered my question. What was the purpose of the Federalist Papers? Do you know?

Do you even read your own links? This is the second time where you own link disproves your case. Allow me to quote from your link:

Hamilton emphasizes that the people need not fear the military establishment because it will be controlled by a government run by the representatives of the people. However, if for some reason, the representatives of the people were to betray their constituents, the people would be better able to resist “the usurpation of the national rulers” than “those of the rulers of an individual state.” If the national government were to use standing armies to usurp power, the people could rally around the state governments and resist the national rulers. The larger the polity, the harder it is for a government to gain absolute control.

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

 

[Bfgrn]

If I am trying to 'spin' Federalist 28, so are all the historians. You still never answered my question. What was the purpose of the Federalist Papers? Do you know?

Do you even read your own links? This is the second time where you own link disproves your case. Allow me to quote from your link:

Hamilton emphasizes that the people need not fear the military establishment because it will be controlled by a government run by the representatives of the people. However, if for some reason, the representatives of the people were to betray their constituents, the people would be better able to resist “the usurpation of the national rulers” than “those of the rulers of an individual state.” If the national government were to use standing armies to usurp power, the people could rally around the state governments and resist the national rulers. The larger the polity, the harder it is for a government to gain absolute control.

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

You can't just stop there. A) You are cherry picking and B) focusing on one paper.

Hamilton is arguing FOR a standing army. HERE is what follows the paragraph you cherry picked.

In the system designed by the proposed constitution, the state governments would act as natural checks on the national government and vice versa: “power being almost always the rival of power.” However, if each state were totally independent and no national army existed, then state governments could more easily violate the rights of the people, who would have very limited means for organizing a strong resistance.

Analysis

In this paper, Hamilton is describing a hypothetical worst-case scenario.

DO YOU KNOW THE PURPOSE OF THE FEDERALIST PAPERS???????????????????????????????????

 

[Spoonman]

You can 'study' what our founders talked about before they agreed on, put to paper and signed their names to each and every words in the Constitution. But the Constitution IS THE WORDS WRITTEN ON THE PAGES. It is a contract, not an op-ed piece on Breitbart.

If one of the framers said during the debate citizens should be able to shoot slaves, would THAT become law PEA BRAIN???

Where does the Constitution say slave owners can shoot slaves?

The Constitution doesn't say slave owners can shoot slaves. Just like the Constitution doesn't say "all able bodied men between the ages of 18 and 45 constitute the militia"

yea, we know that. all it says is the right to bear arms shal not be infringed. so why do you anti gun nuts keep trying to add words to it?

 

[Pogo]

Where does the Constitution say slave owners can shoot slaves?

The Constitution doesn't say slave owners can shoot slaves. Just like the Constitution doesn't say "all able bodied men between the ages of 18 and 45 constitute the militia"

yea, we know that. all it says is the right to bear arms shal not be infringed. so why do you anti gun nuts keep trying to add words to it?

Actually that's not all it says; it carries the dependent clause "a well regulated militia being necessary to the Security of a free State". I don't know what all that other tangential flotsam about slavery and conscription is.

Doesn't matter anyway since the thread isn't about the Second Amendment.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Bfgrn, are you denying that Hamilton clearly stated that the people, as a final and last resort, have the natural right to overthrow an abusive natural government and its standing army (In Federalist 28)?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The Constitution doesn't say slave owners can shoot slaves. Just like the Constitution doesn't say "all able bodied men between the ages of 18 and 45 constitute the militia"

yea, we know that. all it says is the right to bear arms shal not be infringed. so why do you anti gun nuts keep trying to add words to it?

Actually that's not all it says; it carries the dependent clause "a well regulated militia being necessary to the Security of a free State". I don't know what all that other tangential flotsam about slavery and conscription is.

Doesn't matter anyway since the thread isn't about the Second Amendment.

By saying that "a well regulated militia being necessary to the Security of a free State" is a dependent clause you just argued yourself out of any claim that you have that we should be able to regulate guns. If only you understood English, you might not end up looking like a fool.

 

[PaulS1950]

Our right to keep and bear arms does not extend from the 2nd amendment. It precedes the constitution. The right to keep and bear arms is a part of our birthrite to defend ourselves - with equal force - against any that would attack us.

The second amendment was put in place to protect the right to self defense and to do so to protect our right to keep and bear arms.

The constitution tells the federal government what powers are granted to it by the states and the people. Any law passed that oversteps those powers granted to the federal government by the constitution are unconstitutional. The powers of the supreme court are also enumerated in the constitution and nowhere does it give that court the power to decide on matters of constitutionality. Therefore if the supreme court makes a ruling on an issue that is outside it's designated powers those rulings are unconstitutional.

If the federal government (including all three branches) oversteps their powers granted to them by the constitution then the states and the people have a right and a duty to protect the constitution and themselves against the federal government.

 

[Pogo]

yea, we know that. all it says is the right to bear arms shal not be infringed. so why do you anti gun nuts keep trying to add words to it?

Actually that's not all it says; it carries the dependent clause "a well regulated militia being necessary to the Security of a free State". I don't know what all that other tangential flotsam about slavery and conscription is.

Doesn't matter anyway since the thread isn't about the Second Amendment.

By saying that "a well regulated militia being necessary to the Security of a free State" is a dependent clause you just argued yourself out of any claim that you have that we should be able to regulate guns. If only you understood English, you might not end up looking like a fool.

Number one it IS a dependent clause because that's simply what grammar calls it (duh) and number two, I've never mentioned "regulating guns", here or anywhere else.
Nor is it what this thread is about.

Who da fool now, beeeeyaatch?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Actually that's not all it says; it carries the dependent clause "a well regulated militia being necessary to the Security of a free State". I don't know what all that other tangential flotsam about slavery and conscription is.

Doesn't matter anyway since the thread isn't about the Second Amendment.

By saying that "a well regulated militia being necessary to the Security of a free State" is a dependent clause you just argued yourself out of any claim that you have that we should be able to regulate guns. If only you understood English, you might not end up looking like a fool.

Number one it IS a dependent clause because that's simply what grammar calls it (duh) and number two, I've never mentioned "regulating guns", here or anywhere else.
Nor is it what this thread is about.

Who da fool now, beeeeyaatch?

Truthfully, grammar calls it a subordinate clause.

You keep trying to hide behind your lack of honesty, but you aren't fooling anyone. All you have to do to prove you are not in favor of regulating guns is make a single post speaking out against that position, but all your posts are defending the idea of regulating guns. You aren't fooling anyone.

I guess that makes you the fool.

 

[Bfgrn]

Bfgrn, are you denying that Hamilton clearly stated that the people, as a final and last resort, have the natural right to overthrow an abusive natural government and its standing army (In Federalist 28)?

That right was clearly stated in the Declaration of Independence.

You still have not answered my question: what was the purpose of the Federalist Papers? Without that knowledge, you cherry picking things that are not the focus of the papers.

 

[Pogo]

By saying that "a well regulated militia being necessary to the Security of a free State" is a dependent clause you just argued yourself out of any claim that you have that we should be able to regulate guns. If only you understood English, you might not end up looking like a fool.

Number one it IS a dependent clause because that's simply what grammar calls it (duh) and number two, I've never mentioned "regulating guns", here or anywhere else.
Nor is it what this thread is about.

Who da fool now, beeeeyaatch?

Truthfully, grammar calls it a subordinate clause.

You keep trying to hide behind your lack of honesty, but you aren't fooling anyone. All you have to do to prove you are not in favor of regulating guns is make a single post speaking out against that position, but all your posts are defending the idea of regulating guns. You aren't fooling anyone.

I guess that makes you the fool.

Bite me.

I'm not here for "gun control", and that's been on the record since I got here. You go find a single post where I called for "gun control", and I will print it out, set it on fire and eat it, flames a-blazin', and post the video. Fucking lying asshole.

"Subordinate/dependent" - same thing. The main statement depends on the qualification of the subordinate clause. Learn to read.

​

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Bfgrn, are you denying that Hamilton clearly stated that the people, as a final and last resort, have the natural right to overthrow an abusive natural government and its standing army (In Federalist 28)?

That right was clearly stated in the Declaration of Independence.

And how does a disarmed population exercise that God given right?

 

[Bfgrn]

Bfgrn, are you denying that Hamilton clearly stated that the people, as a final and last resort, have the natural right to overthrow an abusive natural government and its standing army (In Federalist 28)?

That right was clearly stated in the Declaration of Independence.

And how does a disarmed population exercise that God given right?

No one is calling for disarming the populace. Nothing even close to disarming the populace. That is your paranoid, polarized dysfunctional small brain overwhelmed by chicken little fear.

Now you need to answer my question. What was the purpose of the Federalist Papers???

BTW, the only God given rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. All of those God given rights were cruelly ripped away from 20 beautiful children by a weapon that should be banned.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

That right was clearly stated in the Declaration of Independence.

And how does a disarmed population exercise that God given right?

No one is calling for disarming the populace. Nothing even close to disarming the populace. That is your paranoid, polarized dysfunctional small brain overwhelmed by chicken little fear.

Now you need to answer my question. What was the purpose of the Federalist Papers???

BTW, the only God given rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. All of those God given rights were cruelly ripped away from 20 beautiful children by a weapon that should be banned.

How would answering the (overall) Purpose of the Federalist Papers contribute to the discussion of the Second Amendment? It won't, it's a distraction you're trying to make to divert from the argument.

In bold, you think those are the ONLY God given rights, first its Life, Liberty and PROPERTY, if you want to get into John Locke:

John Locke: Natural Rights to Life, Liberty, and Property : The Freeman : Foundation for Economic Education

Also, there are MANY MORE RIGHTS than just those.

Now tell me, since you you all arguing to DISARM the people of MILITARY and NEAR MILITARY grade MODERN weapons, how are we supposed to resist a tyrannical government once DISARMED of those MODERN MILITARY GRADE WEAPONS. Second Amendment implies PARITY OF ARMS.

Quantum Windbag and Rabbi, join the fun on this, he's completely trapped in the corner, checkmate in four moves.

 

[jtpr312]

OK, please cite the specific Article and Section of the US Constitution that states: "all able bodied men between the ages of 18 and 45 constitute the militia"?

I will be waiting. It is not an opening to give people's opinions. You right wing turds always like to use the Constitution as a weapon against liberals. Now is your chance. If it is in the Constitution, it should be easy for you experts to provide where it is written in the Constitution.

1-2-3-GO!

OK, please go to your local school board and ask for a refund for the tax payers for what was spent on your education, it was obviously a waste of their money. First off I never said anything about 18-45, I stated a militia is ALL citizens according to the men who wrote the Constitution including the Bill of Rights, debated about it and finally voted to ratify it. Secondly, the poster never said anyone who READ the Constitution, the poster stated anyone who ever STUDIED the Constitution, and to study the Constitution would include reading the writings of those who wrote it and the co-author and one of the Founders considered to be the Father of the Bill of Rights, CLEARLY stated that a militia is ALL citizens except a few govt officials.

Interesting concept you are cornering yourself in. So the Constitution is not really a legal document ratified by the men who signed it. It is open to whatever opinions, arguments and debate that went on before they signed their names to it.

And here I always thought that the opinions, arguments and debate were only opinions, arguments and debate. And what they agreed on was written and ratified. I was wrong

I truly IS a living document...Thanks for that...

The Constitution is not open to debate and this is not an opinion, that's the problem we currently have today, too many slick mouthed lawyers debating what the Founders intent was. This is a statement of fact concerning what the co-author thought the militia was. The question is what is a militia? Since there are numerous meanings being thrown around, and seeing that word's meanings and usage sometimes change over time, the ONLY way to decipher what the authors meant by usuing the word militia is to look what they considered the word to mean at the time. Now when we do that, we see the co-author, one of the two men thought of as The Father's of the Bill of Rights, from his own words, we can clearly see what he thought the word he used meant. When the amendment was being debated, George Mason, was quite specific about what he meant by that word, "I ask, sir, what is the miilitia, It is the whole people, except for few public officials." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426). So no, it's not a living document that can be changed as different justices offer their own political/social slant to the "intent". The Founders where pretty freaking clear on their intent and to find that intent, you go to other sources where the Founders wrote EXACTLY what their intent was. This "intent" was common knowledge among those who debated the issues regarding the Constitution and then later voted in favor of ratifying said document. Meaning EVERY man that voted to ratify the Constitution understood the word militia to mean EVERY citizen except a few politicians. We look further into the writings of the other men who debated the issue and then voted to ratify it to find what their "intent" was in including the 2nd Amendment in the document. We can clearly see from their writings that their intent wasn't to give us the right to hunt. Or the right to protect ourselves from predatory criminals, they had no reason to debate on that because in their minds, thoughts, opinions and beliefs, those two things went without saying, men had a right to procure food for their families and men had a right to use whatever means neccessary to protect their families from predatory scumbags. Their intent on including the 2nd Amendment was soley as a
final check and balance in our system of Govt. As a means to keep the govt from assuming total control over a free people. This is clearly evidenced by the writings of those who spoke in defense of the Amendment and those who voted for it's ratification.

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." (Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169)

What, Sir, is the use of a militia? (remember, this man was talking about Mason's, Lee's, Madison's idea of a militia being ALL Americans) It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [ I Annals of Congress at 750 {August 17, 1789}])


"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. (Remeber, this man considered the Militia to be EVERY citizen, EVERY ONE, not a National Guard, but EVERY citizen)[/B]Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people" (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788)

"The Constitution shall never be construed....to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms" (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87)


"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." (Tench Coxe in `Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution' under the Pseudonym `A Pennsylvanian' in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1)

"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950])


I could go on and on and on. The point is, we don't need the 9 whores in DC to "interpret" the meaning or intent of what the Founders wrote. They very clearly defined their meanings and intent for themselves.

 

[jtpr312]

Interesting concept you are cornering yourself in. So the Constitution is not really a legal document ratified by the men who signed it. It is open to whatever opinions, arguments and debate that went on before they signed their names to it.

And here I always thought that the opinions, arguments and debate were only opinions, arguments and debate. And what they agreed on was written and ratified. I was wrong

I truly IS a living document...Thanks for that...

You still haven't gotten out of that specifics corner yet bub

I will ask you again. If I said "Anyone who has studied the constitution knows that all able bodied men between the ages of 18 and 45 constitute the militia"

WHERE would you look?

Are you dense or what? I already told you that the word militia means EVERY able bodied citizen, you can clearly take that to mean EVERY citizen old enough or young enough to carry and effectively use a firearm.