Any thought that maybe the entire 2A is a massive mistake?

[Glitch]

Why is it nonsense? Because you say so?

It is complete an utter bullshit because none of it is true. James Madison is also not the "father of the constitution." You couldn't be more misinformed if you had intentionally tried to get everything wrong.

The founders never feared a standing army, or an army of any sort. Which is why theyh immediately reinstated the US Army within the first 90 days of ratifying the US Constitution. Anyone who thinks Madison is the "father of the constitution" is only demonstrating their complete ignorance of American history. No wonder you source the anti-American leftist filth in the media, and not real history. Fake News is all you have. You truly have no clue, and that is what makes your posts utterly pathetic.

 

[Geoist]

Their intent was clear by the word arms which is inclusive of literally everything one could conceivably use. Private persons owned their own warships back in the day that were in many cases superior to what our navy had. They could burn a portside town to ashes if they cared to.

Here we go, people. Advocacy of private militaries. How about private nuclear warheads and biological weapons too?

 

[RIP U.S. Democracy]

It is complete an utter bullshit because none of it is true. James Madison is also not the "father of the constitution." You couldn't be more misinformed if you had intentionally tried to get everything wrong.

The founders never feared a standing army, or an army of any sort. Which is why theyh immediately reinstated the US Army within the first 90 days of ratifying the US Constitution. Anyone who thinks Madison is the "father of the constitution" is only demonstrating their complete ignorance of American history. No wonder you source the anti-American leftist filth in the media, and not real history. Fake News is all you have. You truly have no clue, and that is what makes your posts utterly pathetic.

Yes, Madison is the father of the Constitution. And I just proved to you that he feared a standing army. I gave you a ****ing quote from Madison himself.

Save your NRA Repug propaganda bullshit for your unsophisticated goober friends.

 

[Glitch]

Yes, Madison is the father of the Constitution. And I just proved to you that he feared a standing army. I gave you a ****ing quote from Madison himself.

Save your NRA Repug propaganda bullshit for your unsophisticated goober friends.

Thanks for demonstrating your abject ignorance of American history once again. Since reality has already demonstrated that you are wrong. What part of "Congress reinstated the US Army on September 29, 1789" are you unable to comprehend? If the founders "feared a standing army" in 1789, as you so ignorantly claim, then why did they recreate one in 1789 - at President George Washington's personal request no less?

 

[RIP U.S. Democracy]

Thanks for demonstrating your abject ignorance of American history once again. Since reality has already demonstrated that you are wrong. What part of "Congress reinstated the US Army on September 29, 1789" are you unable to comprehend? If the founders "feared a standing army" in 1789, as you so ignorantly claim, then why did they recreate one in 1789 - at President George Washington's personal request no less?

I'm not disputing that. You said the founders "never feared a standing army". I just showed you that the Father of the Constitution, James Madison, DID fear a standing army.

You are 100% categorically WRONG.

 

[LouC]

Massive mistake?
No.
Shortsighted?
Hell yes.
Fix?
State Up Constitutional Convention to revisit Parts of the Constitution, including the 2nd Amendment.

My opinions.

 

[Rucker61]

I'm not disputing that. You said the founders "never feared a standing army". I just showed you that the Father of the Constitution, James Madison, DID fear a standing army.

You are 100% categorically WRONG.

Did all of the Founders fear a standing army?

In year after the BoR was ratified the Legion of the United States was formed, replacing the First American Regiment, the successor to the Continental Army. They didn't seem afraid enough of a standing army not to have one.

 

[Rucker61]

Massive mistake?
No.
Shortsighted?
Hell yes.
Fix?
State Up Constitutional Convention to revisit Parts of the Constitution, including the 2nd Amendment.

My opinions.

It would still take 38 states to ratify any changes.

 

[LouC]

It would still take 38 states to ratify any changes.

Yes.

Thanks.

But I would much rather it begin as a State Legislature movement up to Congress, a movement pushed by the people in the States to have their State Legislatures act!

 

[RedAkston]

I'm not disputing that. You said the founders "never feared a standing army". I just showed you that the Father of the Constitution, James Madison, DID fear a standing army.

You are 100% categorically WRONG.

He did not fear a standing army, in and of itself. From his own words:

A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty.

The key part that you seem to be excluding, whether it's intentional or not, is the latter part of his statement. He feared an overgrown executive branch, one with a standing army. His point was more about being for a smaller federal government than against a standing army. This is why our form of government includes three branches and not just the executive. The other two branches are in place to keep checks and balances on the executive.

Did you honestly not know this or are you purposely being intellectually dishonest?

 

[RIP U.S. Democracy]

He did not fear a standing army, in and of itself. From his own words:


The key part that you seem to be excluding, whether it's intentional or not, is the latter part of his statement. He feared an overgrown executive branch, one with a standing army. His point was more about being for a smaller federal government than against a standing army. This is why our form of government includes three branches and not just the executive. The other two branches are in place to keep checks and balances on the executive.

Did you honestly not know this or are you purposely being intellectually dishonest?

Madison feared both a large government and a standing army. I'm not being dishonest at all.

 

[RF667799]

Madison feared both a large government and a standing army. I'm not being dishonest at all.

Would he have feared a large government with no standing army?

 

[RedAkston]

Madison feared both a large government and a standing army. I'm not being dishonest at all.

But you are when you only look at the first part of his statement and ignore the rest.

 

[multivita-man]

I don't think the 2A was really a mistake; I think that the right has created a fake history of gun rights in this country. And they're really good at explaining why we're allowed to express outrage about how officers didn't kill a psycho with an arsenal fast enough, but we can't say a single word reforming healthcare that might actually help psychos or a single word about ways to take their arsenals away from them. This is what people in almost every modern nation would call...****ing nuts.

But hey, we're exceptional at least.

 

[RF667799]

I don't think the 2A was really a mistake; I think that the right has created a fake history of gun rights in this country. And they're really good at explaining why we're allowed to express outrage about how officers didn't kill a psycho with an arsenal fast enough, but we can't say a single word reforming healthcare that might actually help psychos or a single word about ways to take their arsenals away from them. This is what people in almost every modern nation would call...****ing nuts.

But hey, we're exceptional at least.

Who was the "psycho with an arsenal" that wasn't killed fast enough?

 

[multivita-man]

Who was the "psycho with an arsenal" that wasn't killed fast enough?

 

[Rucker61]

I don't think the 2A was really a mistake; I think that the right has created a fake history of gun rights in this country.

The individual right to keep and bear arms for self defense has been recognized since 1776.

And they're really good at explaining why we're allowed to express outrage about how officers didn't kill a psycho with an arsenal fast enough

One firearm is an arsenal now?

, but we can't say a single word reforming healthcare that might actually help psychos

Knock yourself out. What forum is that discussed?

or a single word about ways to take their arsenals away from them.

So confiscation is part of the plan.

This is what people in almost every modern nation would call...****ing nuts.

But hey, we're exceptional at least.

 

[RF667799]

View attachment 67394075

You don't know, or don't want to answer?

Hyperbole can be really hard to support, can't it?

 

[natman]

Interesting factoid.

2nd Amendment ratified: 18th century.
Invention of the bullet: 19th century.

I like to half-joke that if conservatives really cared about the intent of the Founders then they'd argue 2A applies only to the 18th century firearms.

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications,... and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, ... the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding. DC v Heller, page 8

When a Supreme Court decision says an argument borders on the frivolous, it's a polite way of saying it's idiotic. Unless you believe that the First Amendment only protects free speech written with a quill pen.

 

[PirateMk1]

Here we go, people. Advocacy of private militaries. How about private nuclear warheads and biological weapons too?

Yes. I am absolutess when it comes to the amendments. Especially the 1st and second.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

No, the populace must be armed, but used are the words well regulated militia, infringe, keep and bear, but missing is buy, how to procure weapons, is part of the right specifically omitted.

Infringe means your bill must promote gun ownership.

Everyone who watches and/or reads about mass shootings obviously knows the privilege to be armed absolutely must be infringed. It could not be more clear that as long as any mass shootings occur, no person who is mentally incapable of using good judgement - regardless of the reason for that - or has ever intentionally hurt someone else in the past (even in the absence of a conviction) is safe with any kind of firearm and deserves one. All Republicans care about is the money and power they get from having the privilege.

Did you ever notice they never talk about the price tags and limitations on where you can buy guns, which are exactly why they are privileged, not exercising a constitutional "right of the people" that never really existed?

 

[RF667799]

Everyone who watches and/or reads about mass shootings obviously knows the privilege to be armed absolutely must be infringed. It could not be more clear that as long as any mass shootings occur, no person who is mentally incapable of using good judgement - regardless of the reason for that - or has ever intentionally hurt someone else in the past (even in the absence of a conviction) is safe with any kind of firearm and deserves one. All Republicans care about is the money and power they get from having the privilege.

Did you ever notice they never talk about the price tags and limitations on where you can buy guns, which are exactly why they are privileged, not exercising a constitutional "right of the people" that never really existed?

Are printing presses free?

 

[Rucker61]

Everyone who watches and/or reads about mass shootings obviously knows the privilege to be armed absolutely must be infringed. It could not be more clear that as long as any mass shootings occur

Until every firearm is confiscated the chance of mass shootings will still exist. Are you thinking the right can be infringed that much?

, no person who is mentally incapable of using good judgement - regardless of the reason for that - or has ever intentionally hurt someone else in the past (even in the absence of a conviction) is safe with any kind of firearm and deserves one.

Why do you believe this?

All Republicans care about is the money and power they get from having the privilege.

Did you ever notice they never talk about the price tags and limitations on where you can buy guns, which are exactly why they are privileged, not exercising a constitutional "right of the people" that never really existed?

The right has been recognized since 1776.

 

[LouC]

Interesting factoid.

2nd Amendment ratified: 18th century.
Invention of the bullet: 19th century.

The first bullets were cast lead balls used in firearms in the 1300's up to the 1800's.

 

[RedAkston]

Everyone who watches and/or reads about mass shootings obviously knows the privilege to be armed absolutely must be infringed. It could not be more clear that as long as any mass shootings occur, no person who is mentally incapable of using good judgement - regardless of the reason for that - or has ever intentionally hurt someone else in the past (even in the absence of a conviction) is safe with any kind of firearm and deserves one. All Republicans care about is the money and power they get from having the privilege.

Did you ever notice they never talk about the price tags and limitations on where you can buy guns, which are exactly why they are privileged, not exercising a constitutional "right of the people" that never really existed?