Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yes, because you don't understand the English language very well. It means what it means. If it doesn't, then it becomes utterly useless, and we might as well just point and grunt like cavemen.
The only thing obvious was that the framers were talking about a militia when they were talking about the right to bear arms not being infringed. Why else is it mentioned?
Many things are actually obvious, such as the fact that - in the world of the Framers - "militia" referred to able-bodied citizens. They mentioned it because they considered the ability of the citizens to fulfill that function to be important.
Actually it was a “well regulated militia” Amazing what happens when you actually read the document==you learn some things. Now you guys don’t want any regulations at all…which is fine. It’s unconstitutional but I’m okay with it.
A militia, regardless, is not possible without arms. If the people do not have "arms" they cannot "form" a militia, regulated or not. Understand what regulated meant in the 18th century, meaning organized to do it's duty, NOT regulated by the government.
A militia may be a "standing militia", or a future "militia". A standing militia is one already called to duty and trained, a future militia is one that has the ability to be called up, with all the material "kept" by those potentially to be called.
If there is no need for a standing militia, one that can be at the ready is the one you have.
Hope this clears this up for you (what the hell am I thinking)
Oh….kay
So now we have this one part of the constitution that applies to “all citizens” where other parts of the document clearly did not…. and not only that, the words “well regulated militia” now refer to a militia that may or may not exist as long as there are no regulations at all.
Yes, like the statistical fact that men and woman in general who possess and/or carry guns are far more likely to be shot than those without, period.Leftists are so damned focused on "pure" intentions to the exclusion of results, it boggles my mind.
Sorry, you were busy denying and projecting. Please, carry on....
Only in the hood.
As with everything in the anti-American movement, the stats are skewed because of the HUGE NUMBER OF BLACKS AND GANG MEMBERS IN THE CITIES WHO PACK AND HUNT WITH GUNS. You remove that population, and suddenly the stats show that people who carry are much, much, much safer than anybody else.
Guess what? The people who are killing each other with guns live in areas YOU control, in areas that have strict gun control, heavy policing, intense state involvement in education and child rearing.
You people are done. It's sad we can't just slaughter you as you deserve to be slaughtered, but nobody is listening to you anymore..outside of your own, sad little cliques.
So the woman in the grocery store and the woman in the car were gang members? Got it.
View attachment 189052
View attachment 189053
Didn’t know Idaho was so gang infested with pregnant women no doubt.
The only thing obvious was that the framers were talking about a militia when they were talking about the right to bear arms not being infringed. Why else is it mentioned?
Many things are actually obvious, such as the fact that - in the world of the Framers - "militia" referred to able-bodied citizens. They mentioned it because they considered the ability of the citizens to fulfill that function to be important.
Actually it was a “well regulated militia” Amazing what happens when you actually read the document==you learn some things. Now you guys don’t want any regulations at all…which is fine. It’s unconstitutional but I’m okay with it.
A militia, regardless, is not possible without arms. If the people do not have "arms" they cannot "form" a militia, regulated or not. Understand what regulated meant in the 18th century, meaning organized to do it's duty, NOT regulated by the government.
A militia may be a "standing militia", or a future "militia". A standing militia is one already called to duty and trained, a future militia is one that has the ability to be called up, with all the material "kept" by those potentially to be called.
If there is no need for a standing militia, one that can be at the ready is the one you have.
Hope this clears this up for you (what the hell am I thinking)
Oh….kay
So now we have this one part of the constitution that applies to “all citizens” where other parts of the document clearly did not…. and not only that, the words “well regulated militia” now refer to a militia that may or may not exist as long as there are no regulations at all.
Try putting that in a language anyone can understand. AND if you disagree, state your disagreement.
Just saying you disagree is stupid
Actually there's no clear contradiction between our posts, but never let that stop youYes, the framers clearly envisioned " a well regulated" state "militia" - i.e. men signed up, trained, and armed with muskets - no women - to check any standing federal army. Therefore, of no use to the world as it is today. It is simply nonsense begging for repeal and replacement with something currently apt and sensible.
Then get that repeal action going, and no, the National Guard is a Military arm of a STATE GOVERNMENT. A Militia can be in support of that Government controlled body, or prepared to fight against it. The Militia is made up of "the people", not sanctioned or accountable to a repressive government.
Many things are actually obvious, such as the fact that - in the world of the Framers - "militia" referred to able-bodied citizens. They mentioned it because they considered the ability of the citizens to fulfill that function to be important.
Actually it was a “well regulated militia” Amazing what happens when you actually read the document==you learn some things. Now you guys don’t want any regulations at all…which is fine. It’s unconstitutional but I’m okay with it.
A militia, regardless, is not possible without arms. If the people do not have "arms" they cannot "form" a militia, regulated or not. Understand what regulated meant in the 18th century, meaning organized to do it's duty, NOT regulated by the government.
A militia may be a "standing militia", or a future "militia". A standing militia is one already called to duty and trained, a future militia is one that has the ability to be called up, with all the material "kept" by those potentially to be called.
If there is no need for a standing militia, one that can be at the ready is the one you have.
Hope this clears this up for you (what the hell am I thinking)
Oh….kay
So now we have this one part of the constitution that applies to “all citizens” where other parts of the document clearly did not…. and not only that, the words “well regulated militia” now refer to a militia that may or may not exist as long as there are no regulations at all.
Try putting that in a language anyone can understand. AND if you disagree, state your disagreement.
Just saying you disagree is stupid
I was reciting your arguments that the Constitution applied to “all citizens”. Clearly it does not.
Actually there's no clear contradiction between our posts, but never let that stop youYes, the framers clearly envisioned " a well regulated" state "militia" - i.e. men signed up, trained, and armed with muskets - no women - to check any standing federal army. Therefore, of no use to the world as it is today. It is simply nonsense begging for repeal and replacement with something currently apt and sensible.
Then get that repeal action going, and no, the National Guard is a Military arm of a STATE GOVERNMENT. A Militia can be in support of that Government controlled body, or prepared to fight against it. The Militia is made up of "the people", not sanctioned or accountable to a repressive government.
Yes, like the statistical fact that men and woman in general who possess and/or carry guns are far more likely to be shot than those without, period.Leftists are so damned focused on "pure" intentions to the exclusion of results, it boggles my mind.
Sorry, you were busy denying and projecting. Please, carry on....
Only in the hood.
As with everything in the anti-American movement, the stats are skewed because of the HUGE NUMBER OF BLACKS AND GANG MEMBERS IN THE CITIES WHO PACK AND HUNT WITH GUNS. You remove that population, and suddenly the stats show that people who carry are much, much, much safer than anybody else.
Guess what? The people who are killing each other with guns live in areas YOU control, in areas that have strict gun control, heavy policing, intense state involvement in education and child rearing.
You people are done. It's sad we can't just slaughter you as you deserve to be slaughtered, but nobody is listening to you anymore..outside of your own, sad little cliques.
So the woman in the grocery store and the woman in the car were gang members? Got it.
View attachment 189052
View attachment 189053
Didn’t know Idaho was so gang infested with pregnant women no doubt.
1 percent of all gun deaths are accidental. What's your point. Can you give us an idea of how banning bump stocks and AR style rifles would have stopped this from happening?
Thanks, but already wentYou go with that
Actually it was a “well regulated militia” Amazing what happens when you actually read the document==you learn some things. Now you guys don’t want any regulations at all…which is fine. It’s unconstitutional but I’m okay with it.
A militia, regardless, is not possible without arms. If the people do not have "arms" they cannot "form" a militia, regulated or not. Understand what regulated meant in the 18th century, meaning organized to do it's duty, NOT regulated by the government.
A militia may be a "standing militia", or a future "militia". A standing militia is one already called to duty and trained, a future militia is one that has the ability to be called up, with all the material "kept" by those potentially to be called.
If there is no need for a standing militia, one that can be at the ready is the one you have.
Hope this clears this up for you (what the hell am I thinking)
Oh….kay
So now we have this one part of the constitution that applies to “all citizens” where other parts of the document clearly did not…. and not only that, the words “well regulated militia” now refer to a militia that may or may not exist as long as there are no regulations at all.
Try putting that in a language anyone can understand. AND if you disagree, state your disagreement.
Just saying you disagree is stupid
I was reciting your arguments that the Constitution applied to “all citizens”. Clearly it does not.
Sure it does
Yes, like the statistical fact that men and woman in general who possess and/or carry guns are far more likely to be shot than those without, period.Leftists are so damned focused on "pure" intentions to the exclusion of results, it boggles my mind.
Sorry, you were busy denying and projecting. Please, carry on....
Only in the hood.
As with everything in the anti-American movement, the stats are skewed because of the HUGE NUMBER OF BLACKS AND GANG MEMBERS IN THE CITIES WHO PACK AND HUNT WITH GUNS. You remove that population, and suddenly the stats show that people who carry are much, much, much safer than anybody else.
Guess what? The people who are killing each other with guns live in areas YOU control, in areas that have strict gun control, heavy policing, intense state involvement in education and child rearing.
You people are done. It's sad we can't just slaughter you as you deserve to be slaughtered, but nobody is listening to you anymore..outside of your own, sad little cliques.
So the woman in the grocery store and the woman in the car were gang members? Got it.
View attachment 189052
View attachment 189053
Didn’t know Idaho was so gang infested with pregnant women no doubt.
1 percent of all gun deaths are accidental. What's your point. Can you give us an idea of how banning bump stocks and AR style rifles would have stopped this from happening?
Oh for the love of Christ…..
The OP…remember that…tells you to feel safe by bringing a gun into the house. Clearly between the 20,000 suicides and the 1% (more than one per day is a shockingly high number by the way for an accidental death!!!!—-not to mention the injuries and disabilities inflicted by the guns) it does not. Study after study repeat the same facts. Caveats are fine and drilling down on the data is what you’re supposed to do. The fact is though that the caveats are not usually so different than our daily lives. But it never stops there…Somehow, as always with gun nuts, it becomes about the 2nd Amendment and I was pointing out the lunacy of the interpretation that you folks have when you start ignoring entire phrases in the text and rely on what you think a common means. And then the lunatic arguments about cars, swimming pools and lawn mowers ensues.
A militia, regardless, is not possible without arms. If the people do not have "arms" they cannot "form" a militia, regulated or not. Understand what regulated meant in the 18th century, meaning organized to do it's duty, NOT regulated by the government.
A militia may be a "standing militia", or a future "militia". A standing militia is one already called to duty and trained, a future militia is one that has the ability to be called up, with all the material "kept" by those potentially to be called.
If there is no need for a standing militia, one that can be at the ready is the one you have.
Hope this clears this up for you (what the hell am I thinking)
Oh….kay
So now we have this one part of the constitution that applies to “all citizens” where other parts of the document clearly did not…. and not only that, the words “well regulated militia” now refer to a militia that may or may not exist as long as there are no regulations at all.
Try putting that in a language anyone can understand. AND if you disagree, state your disagreement.
Just saying you disagree is stupid
I was reciting your arguments that the Constitution applied to “all citizens”. Clearly it does not.
Sure it does
Facts are not your friends on this one either. Sorry.
Yes, like the statistical fact that men and woman in general who possess and/or carry guns are far more likely to be shot than those without, period.
Sorry, you were busy denying and projecting. Please, carry on....
Only in the hood.
As with everything in the anti-American movement, the stats are skewed because of the HUGE NUMBER OF BLACKS AND GANG MEMBERS IN THE CITIES WHO PACK AND HUNT WITH GUNS. You remove that population, and suddenly the stats show that people who carry are much, much, much safer than anybody else.
Guess what? The people who are killing each other with guns live in areas YOU control, in areas that have strict gun control, heavy policing, intense state involvement in education and child rearing.
You people are done. It's sad we can't just slaughter you as you deserve to be slaughtered, but nobody is listening to you anymore..outside of your own, sad little cliques.
So the woman in the grocery store and the woman in the car were gang members? Got it.
View attachment 189052
View attachment 189053
Didn’t know Idaho was so gang infested with pregnant women no doubt.
1 percent of all gun deaths are accidental. What's your point. Can you give us an idea of how banning bump stocks and AR style rifles would have stopped this from happening?
Oh for the love of Christ…..
The OP…remember that…tells you to feel safe by bringing a gun into the house. Clearly between the 20,000 suicides and the 1% (more than one per day is a shockingly high number by the way for an accidental death!!!!—-not to mention the injuries and disabilities inflicted by the guns) it does not. Study after study repeat the same facts. Caveats are fine and drilling down on the data is what you’re supposed to do. The fact is though that the caveats are not usually so different than our daily lives. But it never stops there…Somehow, as always with gun nuts, it becomes about the 2nd Amendment and I was pointing out the lunacy of the interpretation that you folks have when you start ignoring entire phrases in the text and rely on what you think a common means. And then the lunatic arguments about cars, swimming pools and lawn mowers ensues.
You can take statistics out of context if you wish, but you will be likely called out for doing so.
Of the total gun related deaths annually, 99% of all are done in the commission of a crime (80% of those are gang related) and the rest of that 99% is by suicide. A very few, roughly 1 per day, out of a total population of over 300,000,000 are via an actual accident. You have a 1 in more than 300,000,000 chance of being killed in an accidental gun accident. That is a fact.
There is no evidence that removing a gun from a suicidal household stops the suicide from happening anyway. There are soooooo many tools one can use to kill themselves with it would be hard to list them all.
Tell any sane human being that they should not do something (name it) because they stand a 1 in more than 300,000,000 chance that they will not survive that thing, and they would laugh in your face and do it anyway.
It is the paranoia that your side is so intent in putting into the minds of everyone that I find repulsive. Combine that with the reality that guns are the great equalizer of the weakest of us when required against the strongest, and most evil, well, your gonna get a fight.
Oh….kay
So now we have this one part of the constitution that applies to “all citizens” where other parts of the document clearly did not…. and not only that, the words “well regulated militia” now refer to a militia that may or may not exist as long as there are no regulations at all.
Try putting that in a language anyone can understand. AND if you disagree, state your disagreement.
Just saying you disagree is stupid
I was reciting your arguments that the Constitution applied to “all citizens”. Clearly it does not.
Sure it does
Facts are not your friends on this one either. Sorry.
Again, because you say so is not an argument.
Only in the hood.
As with everything in the anti-American movement, the stats are skewed because of the HUGE NUMBER OF BLACKS AND GANG MEMBERS IN THE CITIES WHO PACK AND HUNT WITH GUNS. You remove that population, and suddenly the stats show that people who carry are much, much, much safer than anybody else.
Guess what? The people who are killing each other with guns live in areas YOU control, in areas that have strict gun control, heavy policing, intense state involvement in education and child rearing.
You people are done. It's sad we can't just slaughter you as you deserve to be slaughtered, but nobody is listening to you anymore..outside of your own, sad little cliques.
So the woman in the grocery store and the woman in the car were gang members? Got it.
View attachment 189052
View attachment 189053
Didn’t know Idaho was so gang infested with pregnant women no doubt.
1 percent of all gun deaths are accidental. What's your point. Can you give us an idea of how banning bump stocks and AR style rifles would have stopped this from happening?
Oh for the love of Christ…..
The OP…remember that…tells you to feel safe by bringing a gun into the house. Clearly between the 20,000 suicides and the 1% (more than one per day is a shockingly high number by the way for an accidental death!!!!—-not to mention the injuries and disabilities inflicted by the guns) it does not. Study after study repeat the same facts. Caveats are fine and drilling down on the data is what you’re supposed to do. The fact is though that the caveats are not usually so different than our daily lives. But it never stops there…Somehow, as always with gun nuts, it becomes about the 2nd Amendment and I was pointing out the lunacy of the interpretation that you folks have when you start ignoring entire phrases in the text and rely on what you think a common means. And then the lunatic arguments about cars, swimming pools and lawn mowers ensues.
You can take statistics out of context if you wish, but you will be likely called out for doing so.
Of the total gun related deaths annually, 99% of all are done in the commission of a crime (80% of those are gang related) and the rest of that 99% is by suicide. A very few, roughly 1 per day, out of a total population of over 300,000,000 are via an actual accident. You have a 1 in more than 300,000,000 chance of being killed in an accidental gun accident. That is a fact.
There is no evidence that removing a gun from a suicidal household stops the suicide from happening anyway. There are soooooo many tools one can use to kill themselves with it would be hard to list them all.
Tell any sane human being that they should not do something (name it) because they stand a 1 in more than 300,000,000 chance that they will not survive that thing, and they would laugh in your face and do it anyway.
It is the paranoia that your side is so intent in putting into the minds of everyone that I find repulsive. Combine that with the reality that guns are the great equalizer of the weakest of us when required against the strongest, and most evil, well, your gonna get a fight.
Somehow 20,000 of them decide to use guns. I’m sure they had other means available…but they chose guns they had in their house.
As for one in 300 million, what if the world are you talking about?
Try putting that in a language anyone can understand. AND if you disagree, state your disagreement.
Just saying you disagree is stupid
I was reciting your arguments that the Constitution applied to “all citizens”. Clearly it does not.
Sure it does
Facts are not your friends on this one either. Sorry.
Again, because you say so is not an argument.
See 3/5 compromise for just one example.
Sure, so the government was so worried about the new country not become a tyranny, like the one that they just fought a war against, that they included an amendment in the founding document..........
That insured the tyrant would control all the “arms” until such time that said tyrant wanted the militia to have them?
Are you nuts?
The comma means “therefore” obviously.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, THEREFORE the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Now you’re interpreting the constitution…. I interpret it differently.
Yes, because you don't understand the English language very well. It means what it means. If it doesn't, then it becomes utterly useless, and we might as well just point and grunt like cavemen.
The only thing obvious was that the framers were talking about a militia when they were talking about the right to bear arms not being infringed. Why else is it mentioned?
Many things are actually obvious, such as the fact that - in the world of the Framers - "militia" referred to able-bodied citizens. They mentioned it because they considered the ability of the citizens to fulfill that function to be important.
Actually it was a “well regulated militia” Amazing what happens when you actually read the document==you learn some things. Now you guys don’t want any regulations at all…which is fine. It’s unconstitutional but I’m okay with it.
No interpretation required.
Only an idiot would read it that, the government would control the very weapons that would be required to fight and over through it should it repress it’s very people.
And, the “therefore” becomes even more apparent when the comma is followed by “to keep”, which indicates “to possess.”
Sorry dude, learn our language.
Again, that is your opinion; your interpretation. Sorry, but that is what you’re doing. They thought it was important enough to include the word “militia”…. Therefore, If you want to keep and bear arms; you should have to join a militia according to the Constitution. That is what the document says. Not me.
I like what we have done with the 2nd Amendment, personally. We just have to limit Mag/Clip sizes to limit the body counts on rampage killings while still respecting the rights of gun owners.
Nope, it’s the opinion of countless scholars and justices.
And if you understood the language.....
You too
You’ve stumbled onto the truth!
Precisely! That is their OPINION. Mine is different. Mine means nothing and yours means nothing. Theirs have the force of law. This is clear evidence that the Constitution is a living document; open to interpretation and opinion.
In 200 years from now, those whose opinions have the force of law may have a different OPINION on the 2nd Amendment, the 1st Amendment, or any other part of the constitution. Just like those who had an opinion when presented with Plessy v. Ferguson ruled differently on “separate but equal” in Brown v.s Board of education later on down the line. I hope not but some court may overturn Brown in the future.
Cuz your kinda slow, let me point to the first three words of the constitution, ya know, those that the Founders thought so highly of, they wrote them in script MUCH LARGER than the rest. "WE THE PEOPLE"
I'll even supply a link to it for ya:
United States Constitution - Wikipedia
They obviously highlighted those because they didn't want any confusion. It did not say, we the Congress, we the courts or we the progressives, it was WE THE PEOPLE. All inclusive isn't it? No interpretation needed, it means all citizens.
Now scroll down to the second amendment and the words the founders used were "the peoples". See the similarity? All inclusive again. The rights of the people to keep (possess) and bear (carry) arms (weapons) shall not be infringed.
There really is no doubt that, to insure a free state, the Founders were establishing the method in which "the people" were capable to fight a government hellbent on removing rights from "the people"
Funny how you apply the “it’s all inclusive” as to meaning “all citizens” (your words) to the 2nd Amendment.
Meanwhile the framers didn’t give women the vote.
Were women not citizens back then?
Your selective interpretations are hilarious.
The Founders also didn't DENY women the vote. The original Constitution doesn't mention voting at all. Suffrage was considered something for the individual states to decide, and some allowed women to vote, and some did not.
These states and territories gave women full or partial suffrage before the Nineteenth Amendment was passed in 1920:
- Wyoming (1869)
- Utah (1896)
- Colorado (1893)
- Idaho (1896)
- Washington (1910)
- California (1911)
- Oregon (1912)
- Arizona (1912)
- Kansas (1912)
- Alaska (1913)
- Illinois (1913)
- North Dakota (1917)
- Indiana (1919)
- Nebraska (1917)
- Michigan (1918)
- Arkansas (1917)
- New York (1917)
- South Dakota (1918)
- Oklahoma (1918)
The Constitution was written during the Philadelphia Convention—now known as the Constitutional Convention—which convened from May 25 to September 17, 1787. It was signed on September 17, 1787.
I promise you, YOU are not qualified to improve on their work.
The Founders also didn't DENY women the vote. The original Constitution doesn't mention voting at all. Suffrage was considered something for the individual states to decide, and some allowed women to vote, and some did not.
"Oh for the love of Christ….."
These states and territories gave women full or partial suffrage before the Nineteenth Amendment was passed in 1920:
- Wyoming (1869)
- Utah (1896)
- Colorado (1893)
- Idaho (1896)
- Washington (1910)
- California (1911)
- Oregon (1912)
- Arizona (1912)
- Kansas (1912)
- Alaska (1913)
- Illinois (1913)
- North Dakota (1917)
- Indiana (1919)
- Nebraska (1917)
- Michigan (1918)
- Arkansas (1917)
- New York (1917)
- South Dakota (1918)
- Oklahoma (1918)
The Constitution was written during the Philadelphia Convention—now known as the Constitutional Convention—which convened from May 25 to September 17, 1787. It was signed on September 17, 1787.
