The Second Amendment Was A Failure From The Start, And Should Have Been Repealed 200 Years Ago

[BLUE COLLAR]

Agree with it or not, it is fact.

Wow, you make an argument even when there isn't one.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Wow, you make an argument even when there isn't one.

Your entire purpose here has been to argue against the sentence I posted.
Apparently, you have been swayed.

 

[2aguy]

I stand corrected. You quoted a small piece for what I provided - not the entire quote.

My mistake.

I quoted the entire quote from your post #602.........You tried to pass off a false quote....

 

[2aguy]

I stand corrected. You quoted a small piece for what I provided - not the entire quote.

My mistake.

Here.......you show me the post number of your entire quote.....I posted #602....you show me the rest......we'll see where that takes us....

 

[Orangecat]

I invoke the typo defense that you used earlier in this thread. However, repeating the same mistake three times in the span of less than two dozen words is not a typo. Rather, it signifies an ignorance.

In Post #590 you pronounced this thread to be done, but here you are again. You are such a fucking liar.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

you might want to start with your duck's in order.

your ducks

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The reference to the militia was a preamble. What it posits is not “the” purpose, but a reason.

Yes!

 

[BackAgain]

your ducks

Pretty sure that correction sailed over his head.

 

[Orangecat]

It doesn't matter what it says in the prefatory clause or why it says it. The operative clause is explicit: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Fuckstick doesn't seem to comprehend that well regulated militias cannot be formed when necessary if the populace is already disarmed.

 

[Orangecat]

I invoke the typo defense that you used earlier in this thread. However, repeating the same mistake three times in the span of less than two dozen words is not a typo. Rather, it signifies an ignorance.

In Post #590 you pronounced this thread to be done, but here you are again. You are such a fucking liar.

 

[woodwork201]

Yep…….you are shown exactly why you are wrong and you play games to hide it…..

Debating rules of grammar is far simpler for the ignorant.

 

[Orangecat]

No, it didn't but fact of grammar: a prefatory clause introduces a reason or purpose as if to say because.

Talk about mangling grammar, look at the bolded. Lulz.

 

[woodwork201]

I'd agree with that, but said right is not unlimited.

You've really backed off; now you're down to only that the right is not unlimited.

Maybe you're right; perhaps there are limits to the natural right. I disagree but let's just pretend. The 2nd Amendment says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. So there is absolutely a limit on the authority of government to codify any limits to the right to keep and bear arms.

 

[woodwork201]

Me: First off, the 2nd Amendment doesn't say anything about the reason for the people's right to possess and bear arms. It doesn't talk about the people's right to possess and bear arms except to say that it shall not be infringed. It clearly limits the power to infringe on a right that exists outside of the 2nd Amendment.
Blue Collar: I appreciate that you've shut the prefatory clause out of your mind, but there it is at the very front of the 2ndA.

No, I haven't shut out the prefatory clause. I do suggest any of the free online reading comprehension courses you can find using your favorite search engine - both for understanding my post and the text of the 2nd Amendment.

The prefatory clause gives a reason why the government cannot infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, not why the right exists. It says nothing at all about why the right exists. If you want to know why the right exists, I refer you to the Declaration of Independence:

​

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator [not man] with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among [not over] Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed [not the government].”​

The right to keep and bear arms stems from the very first right - the right to life. If a man does not have the toolsor ability to defend his life, including every tool that might be used by those who might want to take his life, then his right to life is void and becomes nothing more than a privilege granted by the government.

Even if the 2nd Amendment is repealed, the right to keep and bear arms stands and is protected from Federal infringement by the 9th and the 10th Amendments. Even if both the 9th and the 10th Amendments are repealed, the right to keep and bear arms will exist.

In fact, every human being on earth has the right to keep and bear arms. It is a right of the Chinese. It is the right of the Uyghurs. It is the right of the North Koreans. And it is the right of every American. Governments can, by force, infringe on the right and use the force of their own weapons to compel compliance, but they can never take the right.

 

[woodwork201]

I invoke the typo defense that you used earlier in this thread. However, repeating the same mistake three times in the span of less than two dozen words is not a typo. Rather, it signifies an ignorance.

In Post #590 you pronounced this thread to be done, but here you are again. You are such a fucking liar.

Who's paying you to be here?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Who's paying you to be here?

Someone who is not getting their money's worth.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The prefatory clause gives a reason why the government cannot infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, not why the right exists. It says nothing at all about why the right exists. If you want to know why the right exists, I refer you to the Declaration of Independence:

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

You made a quote and said it came from the Heller decision....that was a lie. You named the Heller decision and then put quotes around a paragraph.....that is a lie.....

However, your natural right is not unlimited. That fact is enumerated in Heller vs. DC:

"The Second Amendment right is not unlimited. We do not cast doubt on concealed-weapons prohibitions, laws barring possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, laws barring firearms in sensitive places like schools and government buildings, and laws imposing conditions on commercial sale of arms. Also, the sorts of weapons protected are the sorts of small arms that were lawfully possessed at home at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification, not those most useful in military service today, so “M-16 rifles and the like” may be banned."

I have to confess that I trusted a source outside the actual Heller Decision. My review of Scalia's Opinion finds much of what was stated in the aforementioned source to be a part of the Opinion - but not in the structure/order in which I presented it.

You had every right to have reacted as you did.

I am content to reduce what I argued to: "The Second Amendment right is not unlimited", along with the numerous examples later enumerated in Scalia's Opinion.

 

[2aguy]

I have to confess that I trusted a source outside the actual Heller Decision. My review of Scalia's Opinion finds much of what was stated in the aforementioned source to be a part of the Opinion - but not in the structure/order in which I presented it.

You had every right to have reacted as you did.

I am content to reduce what I argued to: "The Second Amendment right is not unlimited", along with the numerous examples later enumerated in Scalia's Opinion.

Just curious…. What was your source? Was it a lower court?

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

You've really backed off; now you're down to only that the right is not unlimited.

Yes, and such is an important detail.

Maybe you're right; perhaps there are limits to the natural right. I disagree but let's just pretend. The 2nd Amendment says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. So there is absolutely a limit on the authority of government to codify any limits to the right to keep and bear arms.

Let's just say that contradictions are at play.