When the 2nd Amendment was written....

[AZrailwhale]

More like, until egomaniacal bullshitters like Justice Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito came along. It was clear what the amendment meant before, as it is clear from the original debates over the amendment itself.

If it said what you claim, private ownership of guns would have been banned in 1787. You are delusional, stop embarrassing yourself with these stupid comments.

 

[multivita-man]

If it said what you claim, private ownership of guns would have been banned in 1787.

How so? lol

 

[AZrailwhale]

How so? lol

Well YOU claim the writers of the Constitution never intended to allow private ownership of guns. So they would have banned them right away if that were the case. They didn't so YOU ARE WRONG. In their contemporary writings they all say that private ownership was the objective. Read the Federalist papers or the various state constitutions for Pete's sake.

 

[multivita-man]

Well YOU claim the writers of the Constitution never intended to allow private ownership of guns.

I said private ownership of firearms for personal reasons is not protected by the 2nd Amendment. Because it's never mentioned in any of the documents and records that relate to the formation of the amendment.

It's possible that gun rights are, to a limited degree, protected by the Constitution, but it's not the 2nd Amendment that protects it.

So they would have banned them right away if that were the case.

Not necessarily. The fact that the 2nd Amendment doesn't protect personal gun ownership rights does not mean that the government wanted to ban guns either. I think it's hard for NRA bots to understand this stuff because y'all are like binary 0,1 thinkers. Constitutional law doesn't work like that.

They didn't so YOU ARE WRONG. In their contemporary writings they all say that private ownership was the objective. Read the Federalist papers or the various state constitutions for Pete's sake.

The Federalist never mentions gun rights as a personal liberty. Read Federalist 29. It discusses the militia.

 

[Stryder50]

They did not, lol.



I don't have a problem guns, but they should be well-regulated.

Start with getting them "well-regulated" out of the hands of criminals, cartels, and gangs and then we can discuss law abiding citizens.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I said private ownership of firearms for personal reasons is not protected by the 2nd Amendment. Because it's never mentioned in any of the documents and records that relate to the formation of the amendment.

It's possible that gun rights are, to a limited degree, protected by the Constitution, but it's not the 2nd Amendment that protects it.



Not necessarily. The fact that the 2nd Amendment doesn't protect personal gun ownership rights does not mean that the government wanted to ban guns either. I think it's hard for NRA bots to understand this stuff because y'all are like binary 0,1 thinkers. Constitutional law doesn't work like that.



The Federalist never mentions gun rights as a personal liberty. Read Federalist 29. It discusses the militia.

the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

 

[multivita-man]

the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

You left off the first part of that sentence. Maybe go back to grammar school and learn about sentence structure and embedded meaning, lol.

 

[progressive hunter]

You left off the first part of that sentence. Maybe go back to grammar school and learn about sentence structure and embedded meaning, lol.

all those are is qualifiers for the last part,,

they tell what and why people have a right to arms,,

 

[multivita-man]

all those are is qualifiers for the last part,,

they tell what and why people have a right to arms,,

Indeed, they explain the context and the purpose.

As even many pro-2nd Amendments have pointed out, many states required able-bodied men to be trained in the use of firearms for the purpose of militia service. Such laws were written not to promote gun ownership and usage as an individual right; such laws were written for a public, civic purpose.

 

[progressive hunter]

Indeed, they explain the context and the purpose.

As even many pro-2nd Amendments have pointed out, many states required able-bodied men to be trained in the use of firearms for the purpose of militia service. Such laws were written not to promote gun ownership and usage as an individual right; such laws were written for a public, civic purpose.

beings fed law over rides state those have no bearing on an individuals rights to keep and bear arms,,

that right is there so if and when they get called up they are properly armed or using traditional speech,,, "WELL REGULATED",,,

otherwise it would amount to a neighborhood BBQ,,,

 

[multivita-man]

beings fed law over rides state those have no bearing on an individuals rights to keep and bear arms,,

that right is there so if and when they get called up they are properly armed or using traditional speech,,, "WELL REGULATED",,,

otherwise it would amount to a neighborhood BBQ,,,

Sure, lol

 

[progressive hunter]

Sure, lol

you are more than welcome to explain what I got wrong,,,

 

[multivita-man]

you are more than welcome to explain what I got wrong,,,

I'm not even sure what you meant, and I don't think you know what you meant, either.

 

[progressive hunter]

I'm not even sure what you meant, and I don't think you know what you meant, either.

I would run away too if I were you,,,

 

[multivita-man]

I would run away too if I were you,,,

Sick burn.

 

[Flash]

At least your honest about it and not trying to post some cockamamie snippet from Cruikshank or Presser, neither of which are really 2nd Amendment cases, but since we're on a message board, I will remind you and others that it's still a bullshit opinion.

What is now the law of the land today isn't what I'm debating. I'm very well aware of the fact that the Supreme Court's conservative majority is rewriting the constitution with each passing year so that it aligns with their ideological leanings. I understand that, and I accept that as a matter of fact.

It's still bullshit, though, and you all know it. You just don't care because you all see this as a war, and for the time being, you're winning.

Am I right?

I honestly don't think we can ever trust the government to protect our Liberties.

For instance, just look at those two dizzy idiots Gay Barry appointed to the Supreme Court and that dumbass low IQ DEI Negro that Potatohead appointed. They will never protect our Liberties.

We can't trust the Executive Branch, the Legislative Branch or the Judicial Branch to protect individual Liberty. Just look at what the Executive and Judicial Branches are doing to Trump and the Patriots that protested against a stolen election. Meanwhile they didn't do jackshit about the 2020 Negro Insurrection that caused tremendous damage to this country. They aren't even protecting the American people from a massive invasion of the Southern border.

Lool at the States and Locals that are ignoring the Heller, McDonald and Bruen rulings.

The Founding Fathers knew that we could never trust government and that is the main reason we have the Second Amendment.

 

[multivita-man]

I honestly don't think we can ever trust the government to protect our Liberties.

For instance, just look at those two dizzy idiots Gay Barry appointed to the Supreme Court and that dumbass low IQ DEI Negro that Potatohead appointed. They will never protect our Liberties.

We can't trust the Executive Branch, the Legislative Branch or the Judicial Branch to protect individual Liberty. Just look at what the Executive and Judicial Branches are doing to Trump and the Patriots that protested against a stolen election. Meanwhile they didn't do jackshit about the 2020 Negro Insurrection that caused tremendous damage to this country. They aren't even protecting the American people from a massive invasion of the Southern border.

The Founding Fathers knew that we could never trust government and that is the main reason we have the Second Amendment.

The Founding Fathers wrote a Constitution because they wanted a stronger, more centralized government than what they had under the Articles of Confederation. Some of the members of the special committee that reviewed and revised the Bill of Rights didn't even want the Constitution changed at all. But they participated because they were afraid if they didn't, it would be changed without their input.

Sorry, but this Ron Paul libertarian view of American history is bullshit.

 

[progressive hunter]

The Founding Fathers wrote a Constitution because they wanted a stronger, more centralized government than what they had under the Articles of Confederation. Some of the members of the special committee that reviewed and revised the Bill of Rights didn't even want the Constitution changed at all. But they participated because they were afraid if they didn't, it would be changed without their input.

Sorry, but this Ron Paul libertarian view of American history is bullshit.

all that counts is whats written in the constitution,,

personal opinions of any founder is just that,, their opinion,,

 

[multivita-man]

all that counts is whats written in the constitution,,

Okay, so you're in agreement that states can take Trump off the ballot because they found he committed "insurrection".

Is that what your position is - that what the people who wrote the 14th Amendment thought doesn't actually matter, just a few words taken out of context?

 

[progressive hunter]

Okay, so you're in agreement that states can take Trump off the ballot because they found he committed "insurrection".

Is that what your position is - that what the people who wrote the 14th Amendment thought doesn't actually matter, just a few words taken out of context?

no ones found him guilty of insurrection,,

so far its just a leftist opinion,, without evidence,,


not seeing the relevance to the 2nd A and what I said,,