The Second Amendment Was A Failure From The Start, And Should Have Been Repealed 200 Years Ago

[BLUE COLLAR]

You ask for examples, I gave some.

I asked for examples of rights given by the Constitution.

It isn't an issue of whether you imposed your religion. Did Christians at one time impose their prayers in public schools?

Did they? Do they today?

"Offends and upsets" was an introduction,

Yes. My right to bear arms can be reduced by your "upset".
Can my right to free speech be reduced by your upset?
And my freedom of religion?

What about double jeopardy?

the meat of the argument was with not appreciating free fire zones managed by unregulated militias of unknown qualifications and motivations.

Now my rights depend on qualifications you want to impose on me?

If you live amongst other people, particularly in a densely populated world, one that qualifies as civilization, all rights come with responsibilities. I have rights too, starting with the pursuit of happiness. Rambo at the mall, and un-regulated militias, interfere with my pursuit.

Common sense dictates that you have a right to protect yourself. My right to protect myself includes making sure you don't abuse your rights. What is so difficult about that to appreciate?

Yes, there are assholes (on both sides of the aisle) who will always attempt to abuse the rule of law. We saw that on Jan 6 when an army of losers assaulted our Capitol (yours and mine). They did so on the merit of Trump shooting of his mouth about voter fraud while losing 62 court filings on the matter, on merit that a group of nobodies could simply declare themselves the electorate and have one man, the VP, select a new POTUS. WTF?

 

[BlackSand]

Rambo at the mall, and un-regulated militias, interfere with my pursuit.

.

All of the things listed above are already against the law and covered by Federal Statute.
So ... Your Society and Civilization in general are already protecting you and your Rights.

.​

 

[BlackSand]

My right to protect myself includes making sure you don't abuse your rights.

.

Exercising one's Rights is not abusing one's Rights.
Breaking the law is illegal and already against the law.

.​

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

No one said that. Why go the straw man route unless you're intellect is faltering?

You're just babbling now because you can't effectively counter a meme. You've been jousting this windmill for days now. Give it a rest, bozo.

The cartoon that you pasted labeled you, and the other 99,999,999 gun owners, an unofficial army. Get your head out of your ass.

Give it a rest? Are you trying to interfere with my 1stA Rights? Whoa, I thought ignorant, reactionary assholism died in a bunker with Hitler.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No needless offense but are these trick questions because...

... you know you cannot honestly address them w/o overturning your arguments.
Which is, of course, why I asked them.

Thus, I ask again, in reference to the concept of "clear, present an immediate danger" as applied to the 1st amendment:
How does this relate to the right to keep and bear arms?
What, in that context, constitutes falsely placing someone in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Good grief, what rebuttal?

Look at you, lying to yourself.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

.

All of the things listed above are already against the law and covered by Federal Statute.
So ... Your Society and Civilization in general are already protecting you and your Rights.

.​

It's also against the law to unlawfully seize personal property, including guns. Reasonable militia regulations will not change that. So, what's your fucking problem with keeping guns out of the wrong hands?

 

[Orangecat]

The cartoon that you pasted labeled you, and the other 99,999,999 gun owners, an unofficial army.

It was a meme, dumbass, not a cartoon.

Get your head out of your ass.

Lol. Such a child.

Give it a rest?

Yes, you've been making a fool of yourself for days here.

Are you trying to interfere with my 1stA Rights?

Quite the opposite, actually. You're just too stupid to comprehend your own position, dope.

Whoa, I thought ignorant, reactionary assholism died in a bunker with Hitler.

You being here proves that theory incorrect.

 

[Orangecat]

I have rights too, starting with the pursuit of happiness. Rambo at the mall, and un-regulated militias, interfere with my pursuit.

How does your paranoid hyperbole of "Rambo in the mall" interfere with your pursuit of happiness, dope?
Is your happiness attained by dictating what other people are allowed to do? GFY.

 

[BlackSand]

Reasonable militia regulations will not change that.

.

Reasonable Militia Regulations refer to legitimate, legal militias legislated, formed, armed and regulated by the State or Local authorities.

The Peoples' Right to Bear Arms is in no way restricted to a militia and wouldn't even have been mentioned if it was.
The Militia doesn't need to be granted the uninfringed Right to Bear Arms ... Because you couldn't have a militia without arms.

.​

 

[flan327]

Concept of what? Why do you even bother with empty comments like the above?

Yet you responded

 

[flan327]

How does your paranoid hyperbole of "Rambo in the mall" interfere with your pursuit of happiness, dope?
Is your happiness attained by dictating what other people are allowed to do? GFY.

Klassy as usual

 

[Orangecat]

Klassy as usual

Illiterate, as usual.

 

[Unkotare]

Hard to believe this troll thread is still going.

 

[BlackSand]

Hard to believe this troll thread is still going.

.

Thanks for your contributions to it ...

.​

 

[M14 Shooter]

How does your paranoid hyperbole of "Rambo in the mall" interfere with your pursuit of happiness, dope?

This is an irrational fear.
This, the hindrance he claims is self-generated.

 

[Orangecat]

This is an irrational fear.
This, the hindrance he claims is self-generated.

He really is just a simple minded dictator-wannabe. Ultimately harmless, but fun to kick around here for a few days.

 

[woodwork201]

I'm pretty sure the militia is suppose to be well-regulated (organized) at all times - even when not in immediate need. If it's not prepared to quickly assemble and act, it's a nothing-burger. Where are the regulations that organize it?

I've read the Constitution probably 250 times or more and never noticed the "at all times" clause. Luckily we live in a digital age where you can even do an electronic search for terms or phrases that the brain and the eyes just plain ignore when reading; it can happen to all of us. So I opened the plain text versions of the Constitution, the Federalist papers, the anti-Federalist papers, the notes from the Continental Congress and just every document I could find. There must be something missing in my downloaded copies because I never found the phrase "at all times" in any context related top the militia or the right to keep and bear arms. Perhaps you could share your copies where you found such a requirement.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I'm pretty sure the militia is suppose to be well-regulated (organized) at all times -

What makes you sure of this - especially the "at all times" part?
Who decides if the militia is sufficiently regulated?
What effect does any of this have on my right to keep and bear arms?

 

[woodwork201]

If you live amongst other people, particularly in a densely populated world, one that qualifies as civilization, all rights come with responsibilities. I have rights too, starting with the pursuit of happiness. Rambo at the mall, and un-regulated militias, interfere with my pursuit.

Common sense dictates that you have a right to protect yourself. My right to protect myself includes making sure you don't abuse your rights. What is so difficult about that to appreciate?

Yes, there are assholes (on both sides of the aisle) who will always attempt to abuse the rule of law. We saw that on Jan 6 when an army of losers assaulted our Capitol (yours and mine). They did so on the merit of Trump shooting of his mouth about voter fraud while losing 62 court filings on the matter, on merit that a group of nobodies could simply declare themselves the electorate and have one man, the VP, select a new POTUS. WTF?

You're right that my right to keep and bear arms doesn't include the right to intentionally point it at you and shoot you - except in self-defense of myself or others, and in some states of my property. Your rights are secure even when I carry a gun.