The Right To Bear Arms

[frigidweirdo]

That's not "at best".

The Original intent was that you were required to keep arms for the defense of the country.

They weren't for hunting or self defense.

Essentially, you were in the "army" and at the ready in cases of insurrection or invasion.

By the way? You were prohibited from using those arms against the government.

There are multiple clauses in the Constitution that specifically address this.

Case law has corrupted the original intent.

Which was that a permanent standing army under Federal control would not be needed and that citizens would perform that function.

Actually original intent put the "you were in an army" down to law, ie, the militia act. Not all people were ever in it, they're still not, women aren't automatically in the militia, men are.

While it is against the law to rise up against the govt, the militia was actually there for this potential. This is, assuming the govt had surpassed its limits and gone off the rails so that the people felt they needed to take over the govt.
It's a check and balance. It's contradictory, but then it's there as the last line of defence to only be used when everything else has failed.

No, original intent wasn't that there wouldn't be a standing army, clearly the constitution has a standing army. It was part of the battle between federalists and anti-federalists, one wanted a standing army, the other wanted a militia.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Thanks.
I love a good laugh in the morning.

You actually bothered to read it all and then make such an idiotic statement afterwards? Wow, I'm impressed with your staying power.

So, what exactly do you find funny? Because you know what would be funny? You actually being able to form an opinion on this and debate with me.

Such long-winded idiocy deserves little but mockery and laughter.

Your rant ignored the word keep.

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.

Using your logic.....

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep (Arms)and bear Arms (serve in the militia), shall not be infringed.

Okay, you win. I can keep arms and I can serve in the militia.

 

[turtledude]

no we are not talking about something else here

the supreme court was rather clear on the issue in perpich

the feds do not enjoy the privilege of activating all the militia

Which is another fine example of the perversion of original intent when it comes to the second amendment.

original intent of the founders

the federal government has no jurisdiction over what arms private citizens own

at best, the federal government can tell members of the federal militia what arms to use while serving

That's not "at best".

The Original intent was that you were required to keep arms for the defense of the country.

They weren't for hunting or self defense.

Essentially, you were in the "army" and at the ready in cases of insurrection or invasion.

By the way? You were prohibited from using those arms against the government.

There are multiple clauses in the Constitution that specifically address this.

Case law has corrupted the original intent.

Which was that a permanent standing army under Federal control would not be needed and that citizens would perform that function.

the founders all believed in the natural right of self defense and with it the belief that all free men should be able to keep and bear arms. Indeed, many did not think the 2A was needed since it was obvious to them

there is no power delegated to the federal government to regulate what sort of arms private citizens can own

FDR made that up with the commerce clause which every major legal scholar-gun hater or not-sees as a corruption of the intent of the founders and its clearly a violation of the 10th Amendment

 

[hunarcy]

.

all public firearms to be bolt or lever action per round, six rounds or less capacity.

Of course, because everyone knows that it takes a lot of bullets to kill someone and no one can kill anyone else with one bullet. Just as no one is ever killed with a bolt action or lever action rifle.

I honestly believe that some of you on the Left can't be trusted to vote.

 

[hunarcy]

shit happens.

Sadly, that's exactly how the nutters see this.

That man was someone's son, father, brother, friend but the nutter's don't feel anything more about his death than the death of a 8yo who accidentally shot himself at a shooting range not long ago.

They'll do damn near anything for a fetus but not a damn thing for a living human being.

you know, some kid taking his driving test got into an accident and killed the poor guy administering the test. That man was someone's son, father, brother, friend but the lunatic left is still ok to let kids keep on getting their drivers license.

Cars are not guns.
Swimming pools are not guns.
Bread boxes are not guns.

The scary thing is, the damn dumb gun nutters really don't seem to know that.

But, since you nutters think cars and guns are the same ...

cars kill more than guns, more people drown each year than are killed by guns. ban cars and swimming, they are more dangerous than guns

Having a car and driving it is a priviledge. Owning a firearm is a right.

 

[hunarcy]

Thanks.
I love a good laugh in the morning.

You actually bothered to read it all and then make such an idiotic statement afterwards? Wow, I'm impressed with your staying power.

So, what exactly do you find funny? Because you know what would be funny? You actually being able to form an opinion on this and debate with me.

Such long-winded idiocy deserves little but mockery and laughter.

Your rant ignored the word keep.

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.

Using your logic.....

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep (Arms)and bear Arms (serve in the militia), shall not be infringed.

Okay, you win. I can keep arms and I can serve in the militia.

Everyone is in the militia.

 

[Sallow]

no we are not talking about something else here

the supreme court was rather clear on the issue in perpich

the feds do not enjoy the privilege of activating all the militia

Which is another fine example of the perversion of original intent when it comes to the second amendment.

original intent of the founders

the federal government has no jurisdiction over what arms private citizens own

at best, the federal government can tell members of the federal militia what arms to use while serving

That's not "at best".

The Original intent was that you were required to keep arms for the defense of the country.

They weren't for hunting or self defense.

Essentially, you were in the "army" and at the ready in cases of insurrection or invasion.

By the way? You were prohibited from using those arms against the government.

There are multiple clauses in the Constitution that specifically address this.

Case law has corrupted the original intent.

Which was that a permanent standing army under Federal control would not be needed and that citizens would perform that function.

the founders all believed in the natural right of self defense and with it the belief that all free men should be able to keep and bear arms. Indeed, many did not think the 2A was needed since it was obvious to them

there is no power delegated to the federal government to regulate what sort of arms private citizens can own

FDR made that up with the commerce clause which every major legal scholar-gun hater or not-sees as a corruption of the intent of the founders and its clearly a violation of the 10th Amendment

First off the founders weren't a mass of men that represented a single mind. And actually they had many different notions about what this country should be about.

Second? They didn't codify "natural rights". That's an esoteric argument that has zero to do with American Justice.

And the 10th is one of the second most misread amendment and has more to do with giving states the power to administer local issues, like say gambling or prostitution. It does not nor should it be construed that this amendment gives the states superiority over the Federal Government in matters of governance. That, was settled by the Civil War.

 

[Sallow]

Thanks.
I love a good laugh in the morning.

You actually bothered to read it all and then make such an idiotic statement afterwards? Wow, I'm impressed with your staying power.

So, what exactly do you find funny? Because you know what would be funny? You actually being able to form an opinion on this and debate with me.

Such long-winded idiocy deserves little but mockery and laughter.

Your rant ignored the word keep.

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.

Using your logic.....

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep (Arms)and bear Arms (serve in the militia), shall not be infringed.

Okay, you win. I can keep arms and I can serve in the militia.

Whew..we can finally disband the army now.

Will save us a bundle!

Keep on watch Todd!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Thanks.
I love a good laugh in the morning.

You actually bothered to read it all and then make such an idiotic statement afterwards? Wow, I'm impressed with your staying power.

So, what exactly do you find funny? Because you know what would be funny? You actually being able to form an opinion on this and debate with me.

Such long-winded idiocy deserves little but mockery and laughter.

Your rant ignored the word keep.

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.

Using your logic.....

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep (Arms)and bear Arms (serve in the militia), shall not be infringed.

Okay, you win. I can keep arms and I can serve in the militia.

Whew..we can finally disband the army now.

Will save us a bundle!

Keep on watch Todd!

Hands up, comrade!

 

[Sallow]

Thanks.
I love a good laugh in the morning.

You actually bothered to read it all and then make such an idiotic statement afterwards? Wow, I'm impressed with your staying power.

So, what exactly do you find funny? Because you know what would be funny? You actually being able to form an opinion on this and debate with me.

Such long-winded idiocy deserves little but mockery and laughter.

Your rant ignored the word keep.

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.

Using your logic.....

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep (Arms)and bear Arms (serve in the militia), shall not be infringed.

Okay, you win. I can keep arms and I can serve in the militia.

Whew..we can finally disband the army now.

Will save us a bundle!

Keep on watch Todd!

Hands up, comrade!

Hold Herr Todd, have to make adjustments to my launch system for my thermal nuclear device the 2nd amendment allows me to have. I will put my hands up after I hit the button.

Oh..and don't worry about the flash..

 

[M14 Shooter]

Hold Herr Todd, have to make adjustments to my launch system for my thermal nuclear device the 2nd amendment allows me to have.

Oh look - ignorance and/or dishonesty from an anti-gun loon.
Color me shocked.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Gotta love this.

NRA: Children Can Have Fun At The Shooting Range

Obvious troll remains obvious.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

I think the OP should have the right to a bow and arrow.

 

[M14 Shooter]

.
all [civilian] firearms to be bolt or lever action per round, six rounds or less capacity.

There is no sound argument for this restriction, and any such restriction will violate the constitution.
Conclusion: Fail.

 

[M14 Shooter]

FACT: The wording of the 2nd Amendment is confusing!

What exactly is "confusing" about THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

That is about as clear as it gets.

Sure is.
And the people bearing arms have an obligation to defend the state while serving in a militia.

Unfortunately for you, The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home..

 

[M14 Shooter]

FACT: The wording of the 2nd Amendment is confusing!

What exactly is "confusing" about THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

That is about as clear as it gets.

It's clear for those who don't want to understand the truth.

The right shall not be infringed. But what is the right? This is the hard part.

The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. Not the right to carry arms.

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

The founding fathers were quite clear on that one.

Really. Citations, please.

 

[turtledude]

no we are not talking about something else here

the supreme court was rather clear on the issue in perpich

the feds do not enjoy the privilege of activating all the militia

Which is another fine example of the perversion of original intent when it comes to the second amendment.

original intent of the founders

the federal government has no jurisdiction over what arms private citizens own

at best, the federal government can tell members of the federal militia what arms to use while serving

That's not "at best".

The Original intent was that you were required to keep arms for the defense of the country.

They weren't for hunting or self defense.

Essentially, you were in the "army" and at the ready in cases of insurrection or invasion.

By the way? You were prohibited from using those arms against the government.

There are multiple clauses in the Constitution that specifically address this.

Case law has corrupted the original intent.

Which was that a permanent standing army under Federal control would not be needed and that citizens would perform that function.

the founders all believed in the natural right of self defense and with it the belief that all free men should be able to keep and bear arms. Indeed, many did not think the 2A was needed since it was obvious to them

there is no power delegated to the federal government to regulate what sort of arms private citizens can own

FDR made that up with the commerce clause which every major legal scholar-gun hater or not-sees as a corruption of the intent of the founders and its clearly a violation of the 10th Amendment

First off the founders weren't a mass of men that represented a single mind. And actually they had many different notions about what this country should be about.

Second? They didn't codify "natural rights". That's an esoteric argument that has zero to do with American Justice.

And the 10th is one of the second most misread amendment and has more to do with giving states the power to administer local issues, like say gambling or prostitution. It does not nor should it be construed that this amendment gives the states superiority over the Federal Government in matters of governance. That, was settled by the Civil War.

You obviously are clueless about the Lopez decision and the Prinz decision involving the brady bill

its not about superiority, its about the power of the federal government to act in an area where it was not given the proper power to do so. Remind me of which university gave you a law degree

 

[turtledude]

Thanks.
I love a good laugh in the morning.

You actually bothered to read it all and then make such an idiotic statement afterwards? Wow, I'm impressed with your staying power.

So, what exactly do you find funny? Because you know what would be funny? You actually being able to form an opinion on this and debate with me.

Such long-winded idiocy deserves little but mockery and laughter.

Your rant ignored the word keep.

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.

Using your logic.....

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep (Arms)and bear Arms (serve in the militia), shall not be infringed.

Okay, you win. I can keep arms and I can serve in the militia.

Whew..we can finally disband the army now.

Will save us a bundle!

Keep on watch Todd!

Hands up, comrade!

Hold Herr Todd, have to make adjustments to my launch system for my thermal nuclear device the 2nd amendment allows me to have. I will put my hands up after I hit the button.

Oh..and don't worry about the flash..

I love amateurs pretending to be constitutional scholars and then they use the Nuke nonsense and proves they are dullards in the field of 2A scholarship

 

[Sallow]

no we are not talking about something else here

the supreme court was rather clear on the issue in perpich

the feds do not enjoy the privilege of activating all the militia

Which is another fine example of the perversion of original intent when it comes to the second amendment.

original intent of the founders

the federal government has no jurisdiction over what arms private citizens own

at best, the federal government can tell members of the federal militia what arms to use while serving

That's not "at best".

The Original intent was that you were required to keep arms for the defense of the country.

They weren't for hunting or self defense.

Essentially, you were in the "army" and at the ready in cases of insurrection or invasion.

By the way? You were prohibited from using those arms against the government.

There are multiple clauses in the Constitution that specifically address this.

Case law has corrupted the original intent.

Which was that a permanent standing army under Federal control would not be needed and that citizens would perform that function.

the founders all believed in the natural right of self defense and with it the belief that all free men should be able to keep and bear arms. Indeed, many did not think the 2A was needed since it was obvious to them

there is no power delegated to the federal government to regulate what sort of arms private citizens can own

FDR made that up with the commerce clause which every major legal scholar-gun hater or not-sees as a corruption of the intent of the founders and its clearly a violation of the 10th Amendment

First off the founders weren't a mass of men that represented a single mind. And actually they had many different notions about what this country should be about.

Second? They didn't codify "natural rights". That's an esoteric argument that has zero to do with American Justice.

And the 10th is one of the second most misread amendment and has more to do with giving states the power to administer local issues, like say gambling or prostitution. It does not nor should it be construed that this amendment gives the states superiority over the Federal Government in matters of governance. That, was settled by the Civil War.

You obviously are clueless about the Lopez decision and the Prinz decision involving the brady bill

its not about superiority, its about the power of the federal government to act in an area where it was not given the proper power to do so. Remind me of which university gave you a law degree

Which goes back to my original point that case law has perverted the 2nd Amendment.

And I don't need a law degree to go up against the likes of you.

 

[Sallow]

Thanks.
I love a good laugh in the morning.

You actually bothered to read it all and then make such an idiotic statement afterwards? Wow, I'm impressed with your staying power.

So, what exactly do you find funny? Because you know what would be funny? You actually being able to form an opinion on this and debate with me.

Such long-winded idiocy deserves little but mockery and laughter.

Your rant ignored the word keep.

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.

Using your logic.....

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep (Arms)and bear Arms (serve in the militia), shall not be infringed.

Okay, you win. I can keep arms and I can serve in the militia.

Whew..we can finally disband the army now.

Will save us a bundle!

Keep on watch Todd!

Hands up, comrade!

Hold Herr Todd, have to make adjustments to my launch system for my thermal nuclear device the 2nd amendment allows me to have. I will put my hands up after I hit the button.

Oh..and don't worry about the flash..

I love amateurs pretending to be constitutional scholars and then they use the Nuke nonsense and proves they are dullards in the field of 2A scholarship

No actually, dimwit, this follows the logical conclusion of what you radicals put out with this "cannot be abridged" nonsense.

You folks constantly and consistently have no consistency in your arguments.