Helvidius
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2010
- Messages
- 735
- Reaction score
- 325
- Location
- Good ol' US of A
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
You really should read the second amendment before you debate it...
ricksfolly
It still required consent of the owner of the territory to turn it over to be made into another state. Therefore, Article IV Section III Clause I does apply. Now riddle me this, why is it legal for West Virginia to secede and the southern states wasn't?
Well I suppose then it depends on who owned it. I would argue the only role the Union needed to play was to determine if they wanted to accept WV into the Union. Anything was left up to Virginians and future West Virginians and the Confederacy.
I do not believe the Southern States did anything wrong in seceding from the Union. I believe it was their right to do so. I think the North would have been seriously hurt economically with the South's departure.
That doesn't change anything I said.
You really should read the second amendment before you debate it...
ricksfolly
I don't need to change my underwear.
IS this the sort of Amicus Briefs you claimed you have filed on constitutional issues?
He did. Thats why he said what he said.
He may have read the original version of the second amendment, but he obviously didn't understand it, especially the part that says
"...only members of a well organized militia..."
What could be plainer?
ricksfolly
A well organized militia is everyone above the age of 18.
:slapme: Calling American!:roll:
That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia,
I give you the Militia Act of 1792.
Accounting now for the gender and racial equality of today this would extend to women and minorities. Thus, everyone that is above the age of 18 is automatically enrolled into the militia.
Stop it. You're cracking me up.:lol:
He may have read the original version of the second amendment, but he obviously didn't understand it, especially the part that says
"...only members of a well organized militia..."
What could be plainer?
ricksfolly
Ladies and gentlemen. Fasten your ****ing seat belts. This thread is now going into Pee Wee Herman Overdrive.:2dancing:
It doesn't say that--if it did the wording would be-the right of those serving in well regulated militias to keep and bear arms s hall not be infringed
you need to stop interpreting the amendment so that it supports your anti gun psychobabble and start interpreting it consistent with the rest of the bill of rights
Oh ****...Okay, show me the part where it says NON-MILITIA members (CIVILIANS) have the right and I'll shut up... nothing implied, actual words.
It will always be a mystery to me how the meaning of the terms got so screwed up.
ricksfolly
Okay, show me the part where it says NON-MILITIA members (CIVILIANS) have the right and I'll shut up... nothing implied, actual words.
It will always be a mystery to me how the meaning of the terms got so screwed up.
ricksfolly
Maybe you ought to actually read the amendment.Okay, show me the part where it says NON-MILITIA members (CIVILIANS) have the right and I'll shut up... nothing implied, actual words.
If you dont like paying income taxes, stop making an income.
You wont be whipped, beaten or hamstrung by your master
As a slave you would be
Maybe you ought to actually read the amendment.
...the right of THE PEOPLE...
Not the militia, not the state, not the people in the militia, but the people.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?