Isn't It Time?

[braindrain]

It is an opinion and I find it very rude.

You be honest about gun owners being required to be in the militia first...

It isn't working just fine?

Sorry if your weak trolling gets called out. Didn’t mean to hurt your feelings.

Why would I lie and say the Constitution says something it doesn’t.

No it’s not fooling anyone. It’s just the same regurgitated talking points being repeated.

 

[Bodi]

I have quite a few, but I'm not promoting any violence.

Good to hear.

Just clarifying what should be obvious.

What should be obvious? That gun owners are so violent that trying to take away their guns will lead them to fight and kill people?

Aren't those exactly the type of person, ones that already won't be in the militia, that should not have access to guns?

 

[Noodlegawd]

That is a cop-out argument. The people with guns are the militia but for hundreds of years they have hidden. They are not well-regulated in any sense of the term. They claim an individual right to own guns... you are kinda teetering on the edge though... and acknowledging a collective right though.

Not even close. A well-regulated militia is a reason, not a condition for the right.

No. It is a restriction on people, clearly, stating what people can do what. A restriction on the government is about passing laws, interpreting them, executive powers, etc.

People don't have a right to be president.

Just like it is a requirement for a person to be in the militia in order to own guns...

Nope.

 

[Bodi]

So far as I am aware there isn't any legal requirement to be part of a well regulated militia.

Except for the 2nd Amendment

The Judicial branch of our government has ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual one,

And they also ruled that slavery was ok and the racial discrimination, Separate but Equal, was legal.

I don't really care what the Supreme Court decides... hell, they just ****ed up women's rights to abort.

and I think it'll remain that way until and unless they reverse their decision or we pass a new constitutional amendment and it's ratified by 2/3rds of the states.

It will probably always remain this way... but that does not mean it it correct.

 

[Bodi]

Ahh. So now you don’t want to go by what the constitution actually says but by what you think it implies. Wonder why such a quick change of heart.

No. I already said what it stated... I was trying to put it into layman's terms for those that only did well in high school.

See this is why you need to step up your game. It’s just too weak

What game?

 

[The Mark]

Except for the 2nd Amendment

And they also ruled that slavery was ok and the racial discrimination, Separate but Equal, was legal.

I don't really care what the Supreme Court decides... hell, they just ****ed up women's rights to abort.

It will probably always remain this way... but that does not mean it it correct.

Yep.

So why not start with that?

 

[Bodi]

Sorry if your weak trolling gets called out. Didn’t mean to hurt your feelings.

Well, it really hurt.

Why would I lie and say the Constitution says something it doesn’t.

I don't think that you are lying... you just don't understand what it is stating.

No it’s not fooling anyone. It’s just the same regurgitated talking points being repeated.

...and hopefully one day, some of the gun freaks out there will understand and accept it.

 

[Bodi]

Yep.

So why not start with that?

With what?

 

[The Mark]

With what?

Why start this thread with your OP and not the post I just asked you about?

Why waste our time?

 

[Bodi]

Not even close. A well-regulated militia is a reason, not a condition for the right.

Except that it states that it is right here:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

People don't have a right to be president.

Missed the point. People have the right to run for presidency.

Nope.

Missed it again.

 

[Bodi]

Why start this thread with your OP and not the post I just asked you about?

Why waste our time?

How did I waste anybody's time?

 

[The Stars Tremble]

The 2nd amendment doesn't command everyone to be in a well regulated militia - it only says that the People have the right to form one.

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams

When they start shooting at cops, they're no longer "peaceable citizens." But that's exactly what the militia types reserve the right to do. They call it "resisting tyranny" and of course there is no authority to specify when laws cross the line into being tyranny. It can hardly be called "well regulated" when it contains psychopaths, which it clearly does.

"The great object is that every man be armed. . . Everyone who is able may have a gun." - Patrick Henry

So logically the government should buy every (man) a gun?

The founders were still laboring under the mistaken idea that a militia hurriedly summoned would be effective for national defense. It only took until 1814 for that to be proven wrong.

"Well regulated" is exactly what proponents of the individual right are opposed to. Licensing of guns, for instance, would be a basic step in regulating the armed citizenry. The Roberts court has effectively nullified the first clause, ruling that it has no effect on the second clause, but the individual right will never be safe from the courts as long as that qualification is there.

 

[The Mark]

How did I waste anybody's time?

By asking questions you already knew the answer to.

 

[Bodi]

The 2nd amendment doesn't command everyone to be in a well regulated militia - it only says that the People have the right to form one.

It does not use the word "form" once... maybe don't make shit up next time?

 

[Noodlegawd]

Except that it states that it is right here:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

"Necessary to the security of a free state" does not make it a condition for the right of the people to keep and bear arms not to be infringed. That's not even close to a rudimentary level of understanding English grammar.

Missed the point. People have the right to run for presidency.

Where'd you get that ridiculous idea?

Missed it again.

Nope, again.

 

[Bodi]

By asking questions you already knew the answer to.

I wasn't asking questions. I was informing people about their obligations.

 

[The Mark]

I wasn't asking questions. I was informing people about their obligations.

Except you already knew that those don't exist under current legal interpretation of the constitution.

 

[The Stars Tremble]

The Constitution does not impose any obligations on citizens.

It certainly allows government to impose obligations. Such as military service, obeying the law, and paying taxes.

Would you say those things are "unconstitutional" just because they're not specifically required by the constitution itself?

 

[Bodi]

"Necessary to the security of a free state" does not make it a condition for the right of the people to keep and bear arms not to be infringed. That's not even close to a rudimentary level of understanding English grammar.

Did you even read the part in bold?

English grammar. LOL

Where'd you get that ridiculous idea?

You don't think that citizens of the USA that meet the criteria can run for President? LOL

C'mon now... this is just getting stupid.

Nope, again.

Another wonderful argument. LOL

 

[Bodi]

Except you already knew that those don't exist under current legal interpretation of the constitution.

I don't care what the current legal interpretation is... that is irrelevant. SCOTUS said that Separate But Equal was legal too...

60 years of utter hell and murder and rape and denying education and and and came as a result of it...

What matters is what the 2nd Amendment says and it says it in clear English...

...and in this case we are seeing thousands of people killed and children executed weekly because of a shitty ****ing ruling.

 

[The Stars Tremble]

By asking questions you already knew the answer to.

There isn't much new here, admittedly.

Perhaps though, the first clause grants a power to States (specifically, not the Federal Government) to call up militia whether the citizens agree to serve or not. And perhaps you could construct from that, that the power of conscription by Federal government is unconstitutional.

 

[The Mark]

I don't care what the current legal interpretation is... that is irrelevant. SCOTUS said that Separate But Equal was legal too...

60 years of utter hell and murder and rape and denying education and and and came as a result of it...

What matters is what the 2nd Amendment says and it says it in clear English...

...and in this case we are seeing thousands of people killed and children executed weekly because of a shitty ****ing ruling.

I don't think that's the only cause.

 

[Noodlegawd]

It certainly allows government to impose obligations. Such as military service, obeying the law, and paying taxes.

I know. That's totally different than any such obligations being set forth in the Constitution.

Would you say those things are "unconstitutional" just because they're not specifically required by the constitution itself?

No, where'd you get that idea? They are unconstitutional if they conflict with a limitation placed on the power of the government by the Constitution, or if they involve the exercise of power that is not given to the government by the Constitution.

 

[Noodlegawd]

Did you even read the part in bold?

English grammar. LOL

Yes, I read it. What part of it didn't you understand?

You don't think that citizens of the USA that meet the criteria can run for President? LOL

Wow, you really do lack reading comprehension. The fact that you CAN do something doesn't mean you have a RIGHT to do it. The Constitution does not exist to spell out everything people CAN do.

C'mon now... this is just getting stupid.

Another wonderful argument. LOL

It started getting stupid with post #1. You haven't made an actual argument yourself, so none is required to rebut what you're saying.

 

[Glitch]

Except for the 2nd Amendment

And they also ruled that slavery was ok and the racial discrimination, Separate but Equal, was legal.

I don't really care what the Supreme Court decides... hell, they just ****ed up women's rights to abort.

It will probably always remain this way... but that does not mean it it correct.

As braindrain very correctly stated, you do not have the first clue what you are talking about. Clearly English is not your first language, or you were simply never educated. Either way, you are completely wrong.