Do You Support the 2nd Amendment or Not?

[braindrain]

And if you don't understand the difference between the Federalist Papers and the Constitution that makes you look rather uninformed.
One of the Federalist Paper writers had nothing to do with the Constitution and 4 of the primary authors of the Constitution had nothing to do with the Federalist Papers.

No what it actually does is give insight into what they were actually thinking. You just want to pretend otherwise is completely contradicts your claim.

When you claim that the founders didn’t intend to have people armed with military style weapons and yet there are quotes from the person who wrote the 2nd showing the opposite proves your claims to be trash. Or do you think the rest of the founders didn’t talk to Madison about what his intention was with the 2nd amendment.

You pretending otherwise just makes you look foolish.

 

[braindrain]

You're not making an argument. The Federalist papers were at precursor using the same philosophy that eventually resulted in meeting Constitution being written.

He is just desperately defecting because he knows he can’t back up his shit. It’s pretty standard from him.

 

[braindrain]

A right can’t be taken away.

It’s not a right if it can be taken away.

But great news. Supreme Court just changed things recently where as I’m not a danger to society I’ll likely be able to get it back as when the amendment was written only special cases could have a permanent loss.

Sorry but you are not the arbitrator of what makes something a right.
No matter how much that hurts your feelings.

 

[What if...?]

If you committed a felony you forfeited it. It wasn't taken away

It wasn't the feeling rejected it

Noon violent felons that have paid their debt to society can have their rights restored. That's good. I support that.

Do you know if any other constitutional rights that can be taken away?

That’s pretty much what the recent Supreme decision was about. That the founders didn’t do that so it wasn’t what they intended.

The felon ban was racist bullshit anyway. To disarm the Black Panthers.

 

[What if...?]

Sorry but you are not the arbitrator of what makes something a right.
No matter how much that hurts your fee

Words have meanings. Like “shall not be infringed”.

What other constitutional rights can be forfeited?

Asking for a friend?

 

[What if...?]

If you committed a felony you forfeited it. It wasn't taken away

It wasn't the feeling rejected it

Noon violent felons that have paid their debt to society can have their rights restored. That's good. I support that.

Only since 1968. When the felon ban was passed to try to disarm the Black Panthers.

 

[What if...?]

Sorry but you are not the arbitrator of what makes something a right.
No matter how much that hurts your feelings.

The founders did that. Why do y’all celebrate shitting on the constitution?

 

[CLAX1911]

Do you know if any other constitutional rights that can be taken away?

No constitutional rights are taken away. A felon forfeited them.

That’s pretty much what the recent Supreme decision was about. That the founders didn’t do that so it wasn’t what they intended.

Good. If someone is let out of jail it means they are fit for society.

The felon ban was racist bullshit anyway.

That's only if you think all felons are of one race.

To disarm the Black Panthers.

The best way to deal with armed hate groups is arm up.

 

[CLAX1911]

Only since 1968. When the felon ban was passed to try to disarm the Black Panthers.

Why are black Panthers all felons? Is it a criminal gang?

 

[RF667799]

Creating the kind of gun controls that other free countries have, that the NRA used to support before they became an arm of the gun industry (are they all stupid?) does not takeaway all human rights.

When has the NRA supported the idea there are too many guns and that we should be more like European countries?

How many guns are "just right" in your estimation?

 

[Toggle Almendro]

The 2nd was about militias, not individuals.

Connecting "the people's right to keep and bear arms" to "the militia's mission to repel foreign invasions" means that we have the right to have machine guns.

This "individual vs collective" nonsense does not change the reality that it is the people who have the right to have machine guns.

 

[Nickyjo]

When has the NRA supported the idea there are too many guns and that we should be more like European countries?

How many guns are "just right" in your estimation?

As I understand things, the NRA used to support gun control measures until - in the wake of the 1968 assassinations, Congress proposed laws that caused them to panic.

As to the number of guns that might be just right, I think it’s pretty clear that with more guns we have more gun deaths. But more important than the number is their regulation in ways that resemble how cars and drivers are regulated and how potentially dangerous medicines are.

 

[braindrain]

Words have meanings. Like “shall not be infringed”.

What other constitutional rights can be forfeited?

Asking for a friend?

You think you have the same freedom of speech or assembly when you are prison. Hilarious.

 

[braindrain]

The founders did that. Why do y’all celebrate shitting on the constitution?

Nope. Try again.

 

[braindrain]

As I understand things, the NRA used to support gun control measures until - in the wake of the 1968 assassinations, Congress proposed laws that caused them to panic.

As to the number of guns that might be just right, I think it’s pretty clear that with more guns we have more gun deaths. But more important than the number is their regulation in ways that resemble how cars and drivers are regulated and how potentially dangerous medicines are.

Yes it’s not too surprising that when Congress started talking about restricting people’s rights, organizations that support those rights would resist that idea.

If your claim about more guns equaled more gun deaths were true we wouldn’t have added hundreds of millions guns and homicide gone down.
It doesn’t matter how many times you repeat that lie it is not going to magically become true.

 

[RF667799]

As I understand things, the NRA used to support gun control measures until - in the wake of the 1968 assassinations, Congress proposed laws that caused them to panic.

So no...the NRA has not supported that there are too many guns and that we should be more like European countries.

As to the number of guns that might be just right, I think it’s pretty clear that with more guns we have more gun deaths. But more important than the number is their regulation in ways that resemble how cars and drivers are regulated and how potentially dangerous medicines are.

And just like that, you abandon the idea of too many guns.

Why do you find it impossible to stick with what you say from post to post?

 

[CLAX1911]

As I understand things, the NRA used to support gun control measures until - in the wake of the 1968 assassinations, Congress proposed laws that caused them to panic.

I don't know I'm glad they quit supporting anti rights good for them if they ever supported the anti-rights.

As to the number of guns that might be just right, I think it’s pretty clear that with more guns we have more gun deaths.

That has been proven false for you to keep believing this idiotic viewpoint is to essentially worship at an altar of lies

But more important than the number is their regulation in ways that resemble how cars and drivers are regulated and how potentially dangerous medicines are.

Cars and drivers are not regulated in the slightest.

Do you mean we should regulate ownership of firearms the way we regulate the roadway and if so why that's the dumbest thing a person could ever think?

 

[mrjurrs]

No what it actually does is give insight into what they were actually thinking. You just want to pretend otherwise is completely contradicts your claim.

When you claim that the founders didn’t intend to have people armed with military style weapons and yet there are quotes from the person who wrote the 2nd showing the opposite proves your claims to be trash. Or do you think the rest of the founders didn’t talk to Madison about what his intention was with the 2nd amendment.

You pretending otherwise just makes you look foolish.

I agree, but they were closer to a marketing campaign for the Constitution than a wtriting about the decisions behind it. I also note that if you want to tell me I'm wrong, do it about something I actually said. You easily go to the past to back up your claims, but apparently have a more difficult time accurately relaying my thoughts.

I said this " Do you honestly believe the founders wanted anyone to carry a weapon of war around civil society?"

And I'll close by saying...you may want to check and see what a prefatory clause does.

 

[CLAX1911]

I agree, but they were closer to a marketing campaign for the Constitution than a wtriting about the decisions behind it. I also note that if you want to tell me I'm wrong, do it about something I actually said. You easily go to the past to back up your claims, but apparently have a more difficult time accurately relaying my thoughts.

I said this " Do you honestly believe the founders wanted anyone to carry a weapon of war around civil society?"

Yes. I honestly believe the founders wanted anyone to carry a weapon around and civil society.

Every weapon that ever existed devised by humans in the entirety existence of humans is a weapon of war. When you say the phrase weapon of war it makes you a mockery because you don't know that all of them are

And I'll close by saying...you may want to check and see what a prefatory clause does.

 

[Sven Karma]

Yes. I honestly believe the founders wanted anyone to carry a weapon around and civil society.

Sure, in a militia, as a militia.

But not just to pop down to the shops to buy a loaf of bread.

 

[CLAX1911]

Sure, in a militia, as a militia.

This doesn't make a lot of sense how much when the militia needs to muster are they going to get fire arms?

But not just to pop down to the shops to buy a loaf of bread.

What are you afraid of

 

[braindrain]

I agree, but they were closer to a marketing campaign for the Constitution than a wtriting about the decisions behind it. I also note that if you want to tell me I'm wrong, do it about something I actually said. You easily go to the past to back up your claims, but apparently have a more difficult time accurately relaying my thoughts.

I said this " Do you honestly believe the founders wanted anyone to carry a weapon of war around civil society?"

And I'll close by saying...you may want to check and see what a prefatory clause does.

I did tell you were wrong about what you said. Both about your claims of what you think the founders thought, and about the 2nd being about the militia and not individuals. Because you were.

And I backed it up by the words of the person who wrote the actual 2nd amendment.


The prefatory clause of the 2nd gives you the reason that the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed.
Not sure how you think that helps you.

 

[braindrain]

Sure, in a militia, as a militia.

But not just to pop down to the shops to buy a loaf of bread.

Sorry but you can’t back that up and you know it.

It’s funny how the words “the right of the people” so confuses gun control proponents.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Of course I do.

This is America. Everybody gets a gun. Everybody.

All these maniacs with guns, of course you need one!

 

[Manc Skipper]

I did tell you were wrong about what you said. Both about your claims of what you think the founders thought, and about the 2nd being about the militia and not individuals. Because you were.

And I backed it up by the words of the person who wrote the actual 2nd amendment.


The prefatory clause of the 2nd gives you the reason that the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed.
Not sure how you think that helps you.

The prefatory clause means that there must be a pool of citizens armed and available to form a militia as required. At a time when the minimal standing army could take weeks to arrive, then local militias were vital in maintaining public order.