What firearms are protected by the 2nd Amendment

[Mini 14]

No one has removed the private ownership of guns. Get over it.

Won't matter if they do.

 

[Mini 14]

So Jake....
What does my vote to end slavery in 1807 mean?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No one has removed the private ownership of guns. Get over it.

Won't matter if they do.

True, I just want play along and comply.

 

[JBeukema]

I think we have a winner....

This thread is my first real "interaction" with JB (where more than one or two dumbass comments are strung together to form "an argument"). It has become clear, after 20 pages, that he simply likes debate more than he has any meaningful opinion, because his logic changes to match whatever the most recent post is. He has all the answers (more accurately, all the questions), and the issues are all resolved, so there is no reason to entertain anything upon which he disagrees, doesn't understand, or conflicts with his personal perception. He is omniscient, and we are all lucky to be allowed to live in his world.

Still, its been an interesting debate.

Sort of like when my daughter gets on one of her "But, why?" terminal loops of curiosity.

Where did I claim to 'have all the answers'?

Yes, I do have all the questions.


Now, as I said- it's 1807: do you support or oppose a vote to abolish slavery?

A vote to end slavery would have resulted in slavery remaining in place because the majority of Americans supported it.

Did I ask what you think the outcome would be?

It's 1807: abolishing slavery would be a good thing or a bad thing.

I'm not about anything else. Would the abolition of slavery in 2807, in itself, have been evil thing just because it would have been 'unconstitutional'?

 

[BrianH]

The FFs did not provide the groundwork for ending slavery. Get over it, BrianH; slavery ended despite their efforts.

Quit trolling, son.

Explain why you think groundwork was not laid by the FF to end slavery? I guess Benjamin Franklin's joining of an abolitionist movement wasn't "effort" in your opinion. I guess the FF personal and publicized statements about slavery wasn't "Effort" enough for you. Was it the whole "All men are created equal" thing that didn't lay the groundwork? You're a duesch and a troll. Get over it.

 

[BrianH]

Where did I claim to 'have all the answers'?

Yes, I do have all the questions.


Now, as I said- it's 1807: do you support or oppose a vote to abolish slavery?

A vote to end slavery would have resulted in slavery remaining in place because the majority of Americans supported it.

Did I ask what you think the outcome would be?

It's 1807: abolishing slavery would be a good thing or a bad thing.

I'm not about anything else. Would the abolition of slavery in 2807, in itself, have been evil thing just because it would have been 'unconstitutional'?

I'm not seeing where you're going with this. It's obvious that the mass majority of people view slavery to be a bad thing. If most of us today magically time traveled to 1807 we would all vote to end slavery. That's a hypothetical scenario that makes no difference. I'm not sure if you are a Socrates wanna be or what, but your questions aren't getting across any point...

 

[CMike]

Because a person may abuse a right is NEVER a reason to deny that right to everyone.

So we don't want Iran to have nukes, but we want Jihad Jane to be able to buy one and give it to bin Laden?

A nuke isn't a firearm .

 

[JBeukema]

The only way to deternmine what weapons are protected by the 2nd - that is, what qualifies as 'arms' - is to look at the intent of the 2nd. See US v Miller.

So now we're looking at 'intent' and not what it actually says?This sounds a lot like that whole 'living constitution' thing the Left uses when they want a very liberal interpretation of the 'general welfare' bit.

The intent was to ensure that the militia had access to weapons suitable for its use.

I refer y'all to be first (or was it second?) post in this thread.

I noticed that you didn't say it was to give Loughner access to the tools to murder dozens, hundreds, or thousands of people.

There go your extended clips (which the military and police don't even really use), automatic weapons (we can argue over burst fire), and guns in every home (ever member of the militia, when called, can report to the armory and peripheral caches to be equipped by their commanders).

There you have it: the intent is settled, many of your beloved guns are excluded, and there is no right to have a gun in one's own home.

that brings us to

see US v Miller.

the courts. Which once ruled that you have a right to a gun on your home, but which can reverse that decision just as they revered Dredd Scott and Pave v. Alabama. In fact, they can reverse any decision, making an appeal to the courts a meaningless appeal to auythority that amounts to nothing at all but blind obedience.

 

[JBeukema]

Because a person may abuse a right is NEVER a reason to deny that right to everyone.

So we don't want Iran to have nukes, but we want Jihad Jane to be able to buy one and give it to bin Laden?

A nuke isn't a firearm .

COTUS says nothing of firearms. It says arms.

Also, the Davey Crocket is a recoilless rifle.

 

[JBeukema]

I think we have a winner....

This thread is my first real "interaction" with JB (where more than one or two dumbass comments are strung together to form "an argument"). It has become clear, after 20 pages, that he simply likes debate more than he has any meaningful opinion, because his logic changes to match whatever the most recent post is. He has all the answers (more accurately, all the questions), and the issues are all resolved, so there is no reason to entertain anything upon which he disagrees, doesn't understand, or conflicts with his personal perception. He is omniscient, and we are all lucky to be allowed to live in his world.

Still, its been an interesting debate.

Sort of like when my daughter gets on one of her "But, why?" terminal loops of curiosity.

Where did I claim to 'have all the answers'?

Yes, I do have all the questions.


Now, as I said- it's 1807: do you support or oppose a vote to abolish slavery?

Are you CERTAIN you want to play this game?

Ok, then.......

Assuming:

Its 1807 and I am lucky enough to have a vote.

Then:

I vote to END slavery.

Now, share some more of your wisdom.

Please do!

If you were in congress at the time and the vote came up, you'd vote to end slavery?

 

[Mini 14]

Where did I claim to 'have all the answers'?

Yes, I do have all the questions.


Now, as I said- it's 1807: do you support or oppose a vote to abolish slavery?

Are you CERTAIN you want to play this game?

Ok, then.......

Assuming:

Its 1807 and I am lucky enough to have a vote.

Then:

I vote to END slavery.

Now, share some more of your wisdom.

Please do!

If you were in congress at the time and the vote came up, you'd vote to end slavery?

You're adding more to the fantasy, but yes....given those parameters, I'd still vote to end it.

 

[JBeukema]

So Jake....
What does my vote to end slavery in 1807 mean?

If you're in congress?

it's means that you're a left anti-american progressive who wants to throw away the constitution


Because the vote- or any other efforts by congress to end slavery on or before December 31 1807 would have been unconstitutional.

That means that if you believe in the constitution you had to support the legality of slavery- and the continued importation of slaves- until January 1st 1808.

 

[JBeukema]

Are you CERTAIN you want to play this game?

Ok, then.......

Assuming:

Its 1807 and I am lucky enough to have a vote.

Then:

I vote to END slavery.

Now, share some more of your wisdom.

Please do!

If you were in congress at the time and the vote came up, you'd vote to end slavery?

You're adding more to the fantasy, but yes....given those parameters, I'd still vote to end it.

Then you do not believe in the constitution.

 

[BrianH]

So Jake....
What does my vote to end slavery in 1807 mean?

If you're in congress?

it's means that you're a left anti-american progressive who wants to throw away the constitution


Because the vote- or any other efforts by congress to end slavery on or before December 31 1807 would have been unconstitutional.

That means that if you believe in the constitution you had to support the legality of slavery- and the continued importation of slaves- until January 1st 1808.

Correction: a VOTE is not unconstitutional. You would be exercising your constitutional right to Vote on an Amendment to the COnstitution...which was done to ratify the 13th Amendment. Either side was neither Constitutional or Unconstitutional. Those who owned slaves weren't breaking the law, and those who wanted to abolish slavery would have voted to end it....

 

[The T]

The FFs did not provide the groundwork for ending slavery. Get over it, BrianH; slavery ended despite their efforts.

Quit trolling, son.

Explain why you think groundwork was not laid by the FF to end slavery? I guess Benjamin Franklin's joining of an abolitionist movement wasn't "effort" in your opinion. I guess the FF personal and publicized statements about slavery wasn't "Effort" enough for you. Was it the whole "All men are created equal" thing that didn't lay the groundwork? You're a duesch and a troll. Get over it.

Thing is? They did. And they preserved the Union at the same time. How could the Southern states be able to get away with counting thier slaves as free people when in fact they weren't?

The compromise was genius, and did lay the groundwork to finally end it AND as a bonus preserved the Union (Ratification).

Don't let anyone ever tell you any different. Those tha tadhere to 3/5ths of a person are just in denial.

 

[Charles_Main]

The second amendment says we have the right to keep and bear arms....would it be constitutional to make buying, selling and manufacturing arms illegal?

Well lets see. Considering that would effectively make it impossible for you to keep and bear arms. I would say no it would not be.

 

[BrianH]

The FFs did not provide the groundwork for ending slavery. Get over it, BrianH; slavery ended despite their efforts.

Quit trolling, son.

Explain why you think groundwork was not laid by the FF to end slavery? I guess Benjamin Franklin's joining of an abolitionist movement wasn't "effort" in your opinion. I guess the FF personal and publicized statements about slavery wasn't "Effort" enough for you. Was it the whole "All men are created equal" thing that didn't lay the groundwork? You're a duesch and a troll. Get over it.

Thing is? They did. And they preserved the Union at the same time. How could the Southern states be able to get away with counting thier slaves as free people when in fact they weren't?

The compromise was genius, and did lay the groundwork to finally end it AND as a bonus preserved the Union (Ratification).

Don't let anyone ever tell you any different. Those tha tadhere to 3/5ths of a person are just in denial.

Oh I agree. JBEK is just obsessed with the constitution and how it sucks. He's an agitator of propoganda... probably communist.

 

[JBeukema]

So Jake....
What does my vote to end slavery in 1807 mean?

If you're in congress?

it's means that you're a left anti-american progressive who wants to throw away the constitution


Because the vote- or any other efforts by congress to end slavery on or before December 31 1807 would have been unconstitutional.

That means that if you believe in the constitution you had to support the legality of slavery- and the continued importation of slaves- until January 1st 1808.

Correction: a VOTE is not unconstitutional.

A congressional vote to end slavery- or even just the importation of new slaves- would have been.

Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight

Article I, section 9

You would be exercising your constitutional right to Vote on an Amendment to the COnstitution

Noone said anything about an amendment.

And such an amendment couldn't be passed- it'd be unconstitutional, as congress must act (vote) to pass it- which would have been prohibited by Article 1 Section 9

...which was done to ratify the 13th Amendment.

after 1808

 

[Mini 14]

So Jake....
What does my vote to end slavery in 1807 mean?

If you're in congress?

it's means that you're a left anti-american progressive who wants to throw away the constitution


Because the vote- or any other efforts by congress to end slavery on or before December 31 1807 would have been unconstitutional.

That means that if you believe in the constitution you had to support the legality of slavery- and the continued importation of slaves- until January 1st 1808.

Hang on.....

You didn't say I didn't have the ability to change the Constitution. If I had the ability to travel in time, back to 1807, and change the Constitution so that I could be ALLOWED in Congress (I'm a Cherokee Indian), much less HAVE A VOTE, why wouldn't I be able to change the Constitution so that my vote would be perfectly in line with its intent?

Your "history" is one of convenience, no different from your 1807 analogy. Like most blacks and most whites, you have conveniently forgotten the parts which reveal your blatant hypocrisy, your blatant racism, and ALL of that history which blows your "tolerant position" completely out of the water.

Must be nice to live in that world.

 

[JBeukema]

Explain why you think groundwork was not laid by the FF to end slavery? I guess Benjamin Franklin's joining of an abolitionist movement wasn't "effort" in your opinion. I guess the FF personal and publicized statements about slavery wasn't "Effort" enough for you. Was it the whole "All men are created equal" thing that didn't lay the groundwork? You're a duesch and a troll. Get over it.

Thing is? They did. And they preserved the Union at the same time. How could the Southern states be able to get away with counting thier slaves as free people when in fact they weren't?

The compromise was genius, and did lay the groundwork to finally end it AND as a bonus preserved the Union (Ratification).

Don't let anyone ever tell you any different. Those tha tadhere to 3/5ths of a person are just in denial.

Oh I agree. JBEK is just obsessed with the constitution and how it sucks. He's an agitator of propoganda... probably communist.

Oh look, we're redbaiting again. Always fun.