What are you prepared to do?

[eagle1462010]

If that is true, America was founded by traitors.

What did the Brits call them?

Slaves

The slaves did not have a choice

BINGO, which is exactly the reason we have a 2nd Amendment!

Thanks again for the support!

Why is it the second amendment not apply to slaves?

We don't own slaves anymore. Please keep up

 

[Pop23]

Slavery has been made illegal by an amendment to the Constitution. Or don't they have newspaper in loonville?

So you are admitting that the founders did not make the second amendment absolute?

Actually it's not me, it's language experts that claim as much:

Here's the opinion of an award winning language Expert:

First his credentials:

Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a a distinguished 17-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.

He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, American Usage and Style: The Consensus, has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publisher's Humanities Award.

Source: http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

His take on the wording of the 2nd Amendment:

[Copperud:] "The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,' contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb 'shall'). The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.

"In reply to your numbered questions:

[Schulman:] "(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to 'a well-regulated militia'?"

[Copperud:] "(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people."

[Schulman:] "(2) Is 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right 'shall not be infringed'?"


[Copperud:] "(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia."

[Schulman:] "(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' null and void?"

[Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."

[Schulman:] "(4) Does the clause 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,' grant a right to the government to place conditions on the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms,' or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?"

[Copperud:] "(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia."

[Schulman:] "(5) Which of the following does the phrase 'well-regulated militia' mean: 'well-equipped', 'well-organized,' 'well-drilled,' 'well-educated,' or 'subject to regulations of a superior authority'?"

[Copperud:] "(5) The phrase means 'subject to regulations of a superior authority;' this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military."

[Schulman:] "(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated."

[Copperud:] "To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary tot he security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.'

[Schulman:] "As a 'scientific control' on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.'

"My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,

"(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?; and

"(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict 'the right of the people to keep and read Books' only to 'a well-educated electorate' — for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?"

[Copperud:] "(1) Your 'scientific control' sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.

"(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation.

Opinion

Expert opinion, trumps yours

Hardly expert

The sentence is ambiguous

And your qualifications (and membership in the Union to support Burglars and Rapists is not actual qualification)?

Go ahead RightWinger, argue an actual point instead of this moronic effort to deflect.

 

[rightwinger]

What did the Brits call them?

Slaves

The slaves did not have a choice

BINGO, which is exactly the reason we have a 2nd Amendment!

Thanks again for the support!

Why is it the second amendment not apply to slaves?

We don't own slaves anymore. Please keep up

The founders seemed to own a few

They did not grant them a right to bear arms

 

[rightwinger]

So you are admitting that the founders did not make the second amendment absolute?

Actually it's not me, it's language experts that claim as much:

Here's the opinion of an award winning language Expert:

First his credentials:

Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a a distinguished 17-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.

He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, American Usage and Style: The Consensus, has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publisher's Humanities Award.

Source: http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

His take on the wording of the 2nd Amendment:

[Copperud:] "The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,' contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb 'shall'). The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.

"In reply to your numbered questions:

[Schulman:] "(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to 'a well-regulated militia'?"

[Copperud:] "(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people."

[Schulman:] "(2) Is 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right 'shall not be infringed'?"


[Copperud:] "(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia."

[Schulman:] "(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' null and void?"

[Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."

[Schulman:] "(4) Does the clause 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,' grant a right to the government to place conditions on the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms,' or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?"

[Copperud:] "(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia."

[Schulman:] "(5) Which of the following does the phrase 'well-regulated militia' mean: 'well-equipped', 'well-organized,' 'well-drilled,' 'well-educated,' or 'subject to regulations of a superior authority'?"

[Copperud:] "(5) The phrase means 'subject to regulations of a superior authority;' this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military."

[Schulman:] "(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated."

[Copperud:] "To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary tot he security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.'

[Schulman:] "As a 'scientific control' on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.'

"My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,

"(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?; and

"(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict 'the right of the people to keep and read Books' only to 'a well-educated electorate' — for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?"

[Copperud:] "(1) Your 'scientific control' sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.

"(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation.

Opinion

Expert opinion, trumps yours

Hardly expert

The sentence is ambiguous

And your qualifications (and membership in the Union to support Burglars and Rapists is not actual qualification)?

Go ahead RightWinger, argue an actual point instead of this moronic effort to deflect.

My qualifications?

I am a USMB poster extraordinaire.....
Take THAT Copperrud

I have not seen Copperrud even post here. If he did, I would rip him a new asshole

 

[Pop23]

Slaves

The slaves did not have a choice

BINGO, which is exactly the reason we have a 2nd Amendment!

Thanks again for the support!

Why is it the second amendment not apply to slaves?

We don't own slaves anymore. Please keep up

The founders seemed to own a few

They did not grant them a right to bear arms

We all know you mean well, but you obviously have fallen off a cliff and are now completely useless.

 

[Pop23]

Actually it's not me, it's language experts that claim as much:

Here's the opinion of an award winning language Expert:

First his credentials:

Source: http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

His take on the wording of the 2nd Amendment:

Opinion

Expert opinion, trumps yours

Hardly expert

The sentence is ambiguous

And your qualifications (and membership in the Union to support Burglars and Rapists is not actual qualification)?

Go ahead RightWinger, argue an actual point instead of this moronic effort to deflect.

My qualifications?

I am a USMB poster extraordinaire.....
Take THAT Copperrud

I have not seen Copperrud even post here. If he did, I would rip him a new asshole

I'm sure he is as offended as I.

Which is to say, we're both laughing our asses off.

 

[rightwinger]

Opinion

Expert opinion, trumps yours

Hardly expert

The sentence is ambiguous

And your qualifications (and membership in the Union to support Burglars and Rapists is not actual qualification)?

Go ahead RightWinger, argue an actual point instead of this moronic effort to deflect.

My qualifications?

I am a USMB poster extraordinaire.....
Take THAT Copperrud

I have not seen Copperrud even post here. If he did, I would rip him a new asshole

I'm sure he is as offended as I.

Which is to say, we're both laughing our asses off.

I am a world renowned message board poster

Copperud? Not so much

 

[Pop23]

Expert opinion, trumps yours

Hardly expert

The sentence is ambiguous

And your qualifications (and membership in the Union to support Burglars and Rapists is not actual qualification)?

Go ahead RightWinger, argue an actual point instead of this moronic effort to deflect.

My qualifications?

I am a USMB poster extraordinaire.....
Take THAT Copperrud

I have not seen Copperrud even post here. If he did, I would rip him a new asshole

I'm sure he is as offended as I.

Which is to say, we're both laughing our asses off.

I am a world renowned message board poster

Copperud? Not so much

Yes I am........oops

 

[Nosmo King]

i ask all of my brothers and sisters this famous question from The Untouchables:

“What are you prepared to do?

View attachment 191687

I have heard a lot of talk here and elsewhere from 2nd Amendment supporters like me. How theywont turn in their guns, how it will be the next Civil War if they try to take them, I see hats with Mulon Labe on them and I see Gadson Flags flying.

But what are you REALLY prepared to do when they come? You have jobs, you have a family, a mortgage, are you ready to become an outlaw?

I have given this a lot of real thought. I have personally decided that yes, I am prepared to be an outlaw. I have a mortgage, I have a family but they are all grown and on their own now. I have a job that I love but will put in jeopardy. But I am willing.

The key I think is to defy the laws and not get caught. To have my guns and everything else too. I am making plans to that end.

This guy WILL
NOT COMPLY, EVER.

What are YOU prepared to do?

What do you expect of gun control legislation? Consider that nothing NOTHING has been enacted except the non-renewal of the Asault Weapons Ban of the mid 1990s.

If you are this frightened, what does that do to the gun lover comeback of 'gun control is gunned up by emotion, not common sense'?

Every election cycle, the NRA runs fear filled ads claiming the Democrats are going to take your guns. Yet even when the Democrats held majority in 2008, no anti gun legislation was debated, let alone passed.

Nothing has been enacted? You aren’t paying attention.

Not frightened, standing up for my rights.

For the 1000th time, the left IS coming after our guns. Some of you are even honest enough to say it outright.

Please cite the federal legislation passed banning guns in the last twenty years.

 

[Pop23]

i ask all of my brothers and sisters this famous question from The Untouchables:

“What are you prepared to do?

View attachment 191687

I have heard a lot of talk here and elsewhere from 2nd Amendment supporters like me. How theywont turn in their guns, how it will be the next Civil War if they try to take them, I see hats with Mulon Labe on them and I see Gadson Flags flying.

But what are you REALLY prepared to do when they come? You have jobs, you have a family, a mortgage, are you ready to become an outlaw?

I have given this a lot of real thought. I have personally decided that yes, I am prepared to be an outlaw. I have a mortgage, I have a family but they are all grown and on their own now. I have a job that I love but will put in jeopardy. But I am willing.

The key I think is to defy the laws and not get caught. To have my guns and everything else too. I am making plans to that end.

This guy WILL
NOT COMPLY, EVER.

What are YOU prepared to do?

What do you expect of gun control legislation? Consider that nothing NOTHING has been enacted except the non-renewal of the Asault Weapons Ban of the mid 1990s.

If you are this frightened, what does that do to the gun lover comeback of 'gun control is gunned up by emotion, not common sense'?

Every election cycle, the NRA runs fear filled ads claiming the Democrats are going to take your guns. Yet even when the Democrats held majority in 2008, no anti gun legislation was debated, let alone passed.

Nothing has been enacted? You aren’t paying attention.

Not frightened, standing up for my rights.

For the 1000th time, the left IS coming after our guns. Some of you are even honest enough to say it outright.

Please cite the federal legislation passed banning guns in the last twenty years.

He stated something in present tense, not past tense.

Deflection noted

 

[Humorme]

My answer: 'Come Get Some Motherfucker'!
The US NG/military will NEVER go to war against their own people.
That leaves the LIB 'man-bun' pyjama-boys' to stand up and fight.
What are they going to use as weapons? Pieces of red licorice?
In other words no one.

The US military will be all over your ass the first time some shithead gun nut kills one of their buddies

They wont open fire on the American people.
They know that if they do the vast majority of our enlisted will cap their ass.

Of course they will
Cops do it all the time

You take up arms against your country, you are a traitor

If that is true, America was founded by traitors.

What did the Brits call them?

Is that important? The Brits lost and Liberty was established in the U.S. Right?

 

[Humorme]

If that is true, America was founded by traitors.

What did the Brits call them?

Slaves

The slaves did not have a choice

BINGO, which is exactly the reason we have a 2nd Amendment!

Thanks again for the support!

Why is it the second amendment not apply to slaves?

The basic reason that the Second Amendment wasn't applied to slaves???

Our citizenship laws only applied to whites.

Have you ever read the Preamble to the Constitution? Although all men have unalienable Rights, the Constitution was written to protect the founders and their posterity (aka citizens.) A lot of issues provide challenges, but once the 13th and 14th Amendments were passed (the 14th illegally ratified) it reaffirmed the application of unalienable Rights.

 

[dannyboys]

What did the Brits call them?

Slaves

The slaves did not have a choice

BINGO, which is exactly the reason we have a 2nd Amendment!

Thanks again for the support!

Why is it the second amendment not apply to slaves?

We don't own slaves anymore. Please keep up

Not quite true. \Without modern day negro slaves there would be no DEM party.
So whose best interest is it in the keep the negroes on the DEM plantation?

 

[Humorme]

They wont open fire on the American people.
They know that if they do the vast majority of our enlisted will cap their ass.

Of course they will
Cops do it all the time

You take up arms against your country, you are a traitor

If that is true, America was founded by traitors.

What did the Brits call them?

Slaves

The slaves did not have a choice

Let us suppose the slaves did have a choice and opted to stay under the heel of their captors (who sold them into slavery.) Those men and women would have become deluxe soup for the black counterparts who sold them in the first place. They might not be slaves, just soup for the opposing side of their warring brethren.

 

[Pop23]

Of course they will
Cops do it all the time

You take up arms against your country, you are a traitor

If that is true, America was founded by traitors.

What did the Brits call them?

Slaves

The slaves did not have a choice

Let us suppose the slaves did have a choice and opted to stay under the heel of their captors (who sold them into slavery.) Those men and women would have become deluxe soup for the black counterparts who sold them in the first place. They might not be slaves, just soup for the opposing side of their warring brethren.

It had been going on long before America as even discovered.

 

[Humorme]

Slaves

The slaves did not have a choice

BINGO, which is exactly the reason we have a 2nd Amendment!

Thanks again for the support!

Why is it the second amendment not apply to slaves?

We don't own slaves anymore. Please keep up

Not quite true. \Without modern day negro slaves there would be no DEM party.
So whose best interest is it in the keep the negroes on the DEM plantation?

Not sure where you're going with that, but blacks were Republicans until the days of Martin Luther King, Jr. and he drank the Kool Aid of the Dems.

The Ku Klux Klan was founded in 1865 / 66 by Nathan Bedford Forrest who had served two terms as a city alderman was a Democrat and elected as such.

That KKK disbanded and it was re-birthed atop Stone Mountain in 1915. Jimmy Venable, an attorney, was the last living KIansman and the head of that organization when he died in 1993 (IIRC.) He was a life-long Democrat. I clerked in the same office he worked in and he died in a nursing home just within a couple of miles of where I live. My mother in law worked in the nursing home.

I don't know if that's relevant to what you were saying, but just threw it out there. Democrats have always been the pro-slavery movement. They promise to make the black man "equal" for whatever meaning they attach to it, and while the blacks might be made "equal" it only translates to NO RIGHTS - you have equal rights - SO NONE OF US HAVE RIGHTS, but for whatever they are, they equal (albeit nonexistent.)

Gee...I'm sorry, almost forgot the real question. If you want to know why blacks could not own a gun until after the 14th Amendment, you have to ask the Democrats. It was their policy.

 

[Humorme]

i ask all of my brothers and sisters this famous question from The Untouchables:

“What are you prepared to do?

View attachment 191687

I have heard a lot of talk here and elsewhere from 2nd Amendment supporters like me. How theywont turn in their guns, how it will be the next Civil War if they try to take them, I see hats with Mulon Labe on them and I see Gadson Flags flying.

But what are you REALLY prepared to do when they come? You have jobs, you have a family, a mortgage, are you ready to become an outlaw?

I have given this a lot of real thought. I have personally decided that yes, I am prepared to be an outlaw. I have a mortgage, I have a family but they are all grown and on their own now. I have a job that I love but will put in jeopardy. But I am willing.

The key I think is to defy the laws and not get caught. To have my guns and everything else too. I am making plans to that end.

This guy WILL
NOT COMPLY, EVER.

What are YOU prepared to do?

What do you expect of gun control legislation? Consider that nothing NOTHING has been enacted except the non-renewal of the Asault Weapons Ban of the mid 1990s.

If you are this frightened, what does that do to the gun lover comeback of 'gun control is gunned up by emotion, not common sense'?

Every election cycle, the NRA runs fear filled ads claiming the Democrats are going to take your guns. Yet even when the Democrats held majority in 2008, no anti gun legislation was debated, let alone passed.

Nothing has been enacted? You aren’t paying attention.

Not frightened, standing up for my rights.

For the 1000th time, the left IS coming after our guns. Some of you are even honest enough to say it outright.

Please cite the federal legislation passed banning guns in the last twenty years.

Now you're trying to slide under the wire with that time frame and avoid that "Assault Weapons Ban" signed into law by Clinton.

But wait - it's coming to me... It's about 2010 or thereabouts. Obama bans American made M1 Garands from coming back into the U.S. from South Korea. Those are eight shot rifles sold by the government via the Dept. of Civilian Marksmanship to civilians. Bet you can't find a damn one those used in in a terrorist act or even a crime in the last twenty years (your time frame.)

Back to you

 

[rightwinger]

Slaves

The slaves did not have a choice

BINGO, which is exactly the reason we have a 2nd Amendment!

Thanks again for the support!

Why is it the second amendment not apply to slaves?

We don't own slaves anymore. Please keep up

Not quite true. \Without modern day negro slaves there would be no DEM party.
So whose best interest is it in the keep the negroes on the DEM plantation?

Slaves existed for 200 years before the Democratic Party was formed

 

[rightwinger]

Of course they will
Cops do it all the time

You take up arms against your country, you are a traitor

If that is true, America was founded by traitors.

What did the Brits call them?

Slaves

The slaves did not have a choice

Let us suppose the slaves did have a choice and opted to stay under the heel of their captors (who sold them into slavery.) Those men and women would have become deluxe soup for the black counterparts who sold them in the first place. They might not be slaves, just soup for the opposing side of their warring brethren.

Soup?

 

[Humorme]

The slaves did not have a choice

BINGO, which is exactly the reason we have a 2nd Amendment!

Thanks again for the support!

Why is it the second amendment not apply to slaves?

We don't own slaves anymore. Please keep up

Not quite true. \Without modern day negro slaves there would be no DEM party.
So whose best interest is it in the keep the negroes on the DEM plantation?

Slaves existed for 200 years before the Democratic Party was formed

You damn sure can't blame the Republicans for slavery. They were not formed until 1854. The Democrats had decades to get rid of slavery before the Republicans ever came along, but they didn't.