What Do The Words "A Well Regulated Militia" Mean?

[M14 Shooter]

You can have whatever gun laws/regulations you want, so long as they do not infringe on the right of the people to keeep and bear arms.

If we taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited the right to an abortion, would that right be infringed?
If we taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited the right to go to church, would that right be infringed?
If we taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited the right to report the news, would that right be infringed?
If we taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited the right to vote, would that right be infringed?
If we taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited the right to free speech, would that right be infringed?

If we taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited the right to keep and bear arms, would that right be infringed?

Do try to be honest.

One of my better posts.
No wonder none of the anti-gun loons tried to respond.

The last time I looked no one was murdered, committed suicide or accidentally discharged their writing untensil while casting their right to vote, causing serious injury to themselves or others. Thus a non fool would recognize the liar who comported voting (abortion, religion, etc.) and guns was engaged in logically fallacies.

You and I both know you cannot demonstrate your claimed logical fallacy.
In fact, you claim this only so you can sidestep the issue at hand.
No surprise there.

 

[Wry Catcher]

One of my better posts.
No wonder none of the anti-gun loons tried to respond.

The last time I looked no one was murdered, committed suicide or accidentally discharged their writing untensil while casting their right to vote, causing serious injury to themselves or others. Thus a non fool would recognize the liar who comported voting (abortion, religion, etc.) and guns was engaged in logically fallacies.

You and I both know you cannot demonstrate your claimed logical fallacy.
In fact, you claim this only so you can sidestep the issue at hand.
No surprise there.

Please see the PM (if you have the balls to accept one)

 

[M14 Shooter]

The last time I looked no one was murdered, committed suicide or accidentally discharged their writing untensil while casting their right to vote, causing serious injury to themselves or others. Thus a non fool would recognize the liar who comported voting (abortion, religion, etc.) and guns was engaged in logically fallacies.

You and I both know you cannot demonstrate your claimed logical fallacy.
In fact, you claim this only so you can sidestep the issue at hand.
No surprise there.

Please see the PM (if you have the balls to accept one)

What's the matter -- can't debate in the open?
Please demonstrate your claimed fallacy.

 

[Little-Acorn]

You can have whatever gun laws/regulations you want, so long as they do not infringe on the right of the people to keeep and bear arms.

If we taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited the right to an abortion, would that right be infringed?
If we taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited the right to go to church, would that right be infringed?
If we taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited the right to report the news, would that right be infringed?
If we taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited the right to vote, would that right be infringed?
If we taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited the right to free speech, would that right be infringed?

If we taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited the right to keep and bear arms, would that right be infringed?

Do try to be honest.

One of my better posts.
No wonder none of the anti-gun loons tried to respond.

I suppose I'm the "anti-gun loon", in your biased and mendacious opinion; you're wrong as usual. At the time you posted this opinion I was at the Giants - Padres Game watching Lincecum toss a no hitter - a much more entertaining afternoon than reading posts by liars and fools.

The last time I looked no one was murdered, committed suicide or accidentally discharged their writing untensil while casting their right to vote, causing serious injury to themselves or others. Thus a non fool would recognize the liar who comported voting (abortion, religion, etc.) and guns was engaged in logically fallacies.

In fact all of the your poorly thought out examples are restrained in one manner or another, as anyone who thought about them for a minute would quickly realize. Patting yourself on the back suggests you even lie to yourself, which may explain the willfully ignorant, but that's for another thread.

And WC's 0-for-everything record of failure to answer M14's question, remains intact.

 

[Little-Acorn]

What Do The Words "A Well Regulated Militia" Mean?


The 2nd amendment in modern language, means:

"Since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right or ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons cannot be taken away or restricted."

---------------------------------

That "well-regulated militia" part translates most accurately, to a populace that is armed and capable of using their weapons.

Note too, that that first phrase is simply a reason why the right cannot be infringed. Not a condition on its infringement. It actually doesn't matter exactly what a "well-regulated militia" is. It could be a pair of shoelaces or a Thanksgiving turkey or a moon rocket. The amendment says that, since it's important, the right to own and carry guns can't be taken away or restricted. Even if somebody proved somehow that it wasn't important, the Amendment would still say that the right to own and carry guns can't be taken away or restricted.

The 2nd amendment is a flat ban on any government restricting or taking away your right to own and carry a gun.

.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Nice PM, dude.

Cosidering your recent posts I must conclude you're either very stupid, an asshole or most likely, a very stupid arrogant asshole.

Translation:
You know you don't have any hope of winning an honest debate, and so shall not even try.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Well we finally agree, you admit you're a stupid arrogant asshole and I admit I won't engage in a debate with a dishonest and stupid arrogant asshole.

 

[Wry Catcher]

One of my better posts.
No wonder none of the anti-gun loons tried to respond.

I suppose I'm the "anti-gun loon", in your biased and mendacious opinion; you're wrong as usual. At the time you posted this opinion I was at the Giants - Padres Game watching Lincecum toss a no hitter - a much more entertaining afternoon than reading posts by liars and fools.

The last time I looked no one was murdered, committed suicide or accidentally discharged their writing untensil while casting their right to vote, causing serious injury to themselves or others. Thus a non fool would recognize the liar who comported voting (abortion, religion, etc.) and guns was engaged in logically fallacies.

In fact all of the your poorly thought out examples are restrained in one manner or another, as anyone who thought about them for a minute would quickly realize. Patting yourself on the back suggests you even lie to yourself, which may explain the willfully ignorant, but that's for another thread.

And WC's 0-for-everything record of failure to answer M14's question, remains intact.

What question did M 14 ask?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Well we finally agree, you admit you're a stupid arrogant asshole and I admit I won't engage in a debate with a dishonest and stupid arrogant asshole.

Took you long enough to tuck tail and run.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I suppose I'm the "anti-gun loon", in your biased and mendacious opinion; you're wrong as usual. At the time you posted this opinion I was at the Giants - Padres Game watching Lincecum toss a no hitter - a much more entertaining afternoon than reading posts by liars and fools.

The last time I looked no one was murdered, committed suicide or accidentally discharged their writing untensil while casting their right to vote, causing serious injury to themselves or others. Thus a non fool would recognize the liar who comported voting (abortion, religion, etc.) and guns was engaged in logically fallacies.

In fact all of the your poorly thought out examples are restrained in one manner or another, as anyone who thought about them for a minute would quickly realize. Patting yourself on the back suggests you even lie to yourself, which may explain the willfully ignorant, but that's for another thread.

And WC's 0-for-everything record of failure to answer M14's question, remains intact.

What question did M 14 ask?

The questions you tried to avoid by claiming a fallacy -- a claim you then refused to support because you know you cannot.

If we taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected to prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited the right to an abortion, would that right be infringed?
If we taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected to prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited the right to go to church, would that right be infringed?
If we taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected to prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited the right to report the news, would that right be infringed?
If we taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected to prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited the right to vote, would that right be infringed?
If we taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected to prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited the right to free speech, would that right be infringed?

If we taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected to prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited the right to keep and bear arms, would that right be infringed?

 

[westwall]

M 14 Shooter is a liar by omission! The evidence is clear, concise and for everyone to see.

Wry Catcher is a liar by choice. Your article says nothing that you say it does other than yes indeed, guns are better at killing people than clubs are. That's not a surprise.

 

[Wry Catcher]

And WC's 0-for-everything record of failure to answer M14's question, remains intact.

What question did M 14 ask?

The questions you tried to avoid by claiming a fallacy -- a claim you then refused to support because you know you cannot.

If we taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected to prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited the right to an abortion, would that right be infringed?
If we taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected to prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited the right to go to church, would that right be infringed?
If we taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected to prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited the right to report the news, would that right be infringed?
If we taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected to prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited the right to vote, would that right be infringed?
If we taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected to prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited the right to free speech, would that right be infringed?

If we taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected to prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited the right to keep and bear arms, would that right be infringed?

In fact all of the your poorly thought out examples are restrained in one manner or another, as anyone who thought about them for a minute would quickly realize. Patting yourself on the back suggests you even lie to yourself, which may explain the willfully ignorant, but that's for another thread.

Abortions are restricted, as to age of the pregnant mothers, the number of weeks of the pregnancy, and intrusive medical procedures in some states are clear infringments;

Offenders on probation or parole for domestic violence have been jailed for a PV when they attended the same church as the victim;

Reporting the actvities by the NSA has created a serious problem for couple of guys recently;

Voter suppression is on going in many red states;

Next time you fly meniton to the flight attendent you have a bomb.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Here's the link which created such hysterical reactons from the gun lovers:

Five myths about gun control - The Washington Post

Let those who can read with comprehension decide; M14 obviously can't or chooses to mislead because he is dishonest.

 

[M14 Shooter]

In fact all of the your poorly thought out examples are restrained in one manner or another...

I did not ask if they were restrained, I asked if they were restrained in the manner I described, would they be infringed?
As such, your response does not address the questions put to you - not that anyone is surprised.
Please do try again.

 

[Wry Catcher]

In fact all of the your poorly thought out examples are restrained in one manner or another...

I did not ask if they were restrained, I asked if they were restrained in the manner I described, would they be infringed?
As such, your response does not address the questions put to you - not that anyone is surprised.
Please do try again.

Yes, they would be and are infringed. And yet only abortion is one where life and death is an issue, as is the uncontrolled and unregulated gun policy you believe was the intent of the authors/signers of the COTUS.

 

[M14 Shooter]

In fact all of the your poorly thought out examples are restrained in one manner or another...

I did not ask if they were restrained, I asked if they were restrained in the manner I described, would they be infringed?
As such, your response does not address the questions put to you - not that anyone is surprised.
Please do try again.

Yes, they would be and are infringed.

So, you agree that to tax, license, register, delay, subject to prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limit the right to arms does indeed infringe upon that right.
Good for you. Hope to see you arguing against all kinds of gun control laws.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I did not ask if they were restrained, I asked if they were restrained in the manner I described, would they be infringed?
As such, your response does not address the questions put to you - not that anyone is surprised.
Please do try again.

Yes, they would be and are infringed.

So, you agree that to tax, license, register, delay, subject to prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limit the right to arms does indeed infringe upon that right.
Good for you. Hope to see you arguing against all kids of gun control laws.

Nice try dipshit. I agreed that the First Amendment enfringes on the right of Religion and of Speech and such laws are not a violation of the COTUS. Such enfringments include defamation, bomb threats and yelling fire to create a panic; human sacrafice and assembling in a governemnt bullding with a firearm.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yes, they would be and are infringed.

So, you agree that to tax, license, register, delay, subject to prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limit the right to arms does indeed infringe upon that right.
Good for you. Hope to see you arguing against all kids of gun control laws.

Nice try dipshit. I agreed that the First Amendment enfringes on the right of Religion and of Speech and such laws are not a violation of the COTUS. Such enfringments include defamation, bomb threats and yelling fire to create a panic; human sacrafice and assembling in a governemnt bullding with a firearm.

I see.
So, to be clear -- If we taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected to prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited the right to free speech, the right to free speech would NOT be infringed?

 

[Kondor3]

All this fuss over a 'well regulated militia'...

Why are we treating the 'militia' rationale as the only rationale that is valid?

It's not.

It is merely the only rationale that was articulated at the time...

There were - and are - others...

The Right to Bear Arms exists...

It was born using the 'militia' argument as its metaphorical baptism sponsor...

People use(d) their firearms to protect their homes...

People use(d) theri firearms to protect their persons...

People use(d) their firearms to hunt game...

People use(d) their firearms for target-shooting and sport...

The way some people harp on the 'militia' argument, it is as if they believe that the Second was actually written to say...

"The citizens of the United States use their 'arms' to participate in a militia, and to defend their homes, and to defend their persons, and to hunt game, and to engage in sport, and, for these reasons, their Right to Bear Arms shall not be infringed, however, in future, if the time ever comes when a citizen-militia is no longer needed, then the use of 'arms' by the citizenry in connection with defense of home, defense of person, hunting, and sport, shall be deemed insufficient reason to allow them to keep their 'arms', and the government may then revoke said Right to Bear Arms."

But that's not what the Constitution says.

Even though that's what the most grasping of the Gun-Grabber crowd wants.

It's also not something that the citizens of the United States are going to let them get away with.

Guaranteed.

 

[Wry Catcher]

So, you agree that to tax, license, register, delay, subject to prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limit the right to arms does indeed infringe upon that right.
Good for you. Hope to see you arguing against all kids of gun control laws.

Nice try dipshit. I agreed that the First Amendment enfringes on the right of Religion and of Speech and such laws are not a violation of the COTUS. Such enfringments include defamation, bomb threats and yelling fire to create a panic; human sacrafice and assembling in a governemnt bullding with a firearm.

I see.
So, to be clear -- If we taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected to prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited the right to free speech, the right to free speech would NOT be infringed?

"arbitrarily"? You're not very bright, are you?