Leftists constantly ask why we are such staunch supporters of the right to keep and bear arms. Here is my answer.

[RF667799]

I know, but he does like to pretend so with those compelling arguments he tosses from the peanut gallery, example below,



and he does like to throw that dishonesty claim at others as well!

You seem compelled to make this thread about me, personally.

I suggest starting a different thread for that purpose, and maybe I'll happen along and see how you're doing with it.

 

[Ambig]

What he was showing you is that you were wrong when you said dims don’t want to take guns.

Anyone who calls Democrats 'dims' is not worth my serious attention, so I'll just tell you a little truth.

It is well known to anyone that isn’t guzzling the koolaid that democrats in power wish to disarm the people.

Republicans want to rape and steal and do acts of terrorism. Prisons (and some government offices) are full of such Republicans.

Gore, Schumer, Obama, Pelosi, Newsome, and Biden all seek severe restrictions or outright bans. Just to give you a few.

Restrictions? So were you lying when you said they wanted to take our guns?

Now they often hide their intentions. Easy to fool fools. They obviously got you since you not only had zero idea they were doing it but you actually challenged those of us who tried to educate you on this issue.

Watch out. Someone around here is really down on debaters who brag about their education and smarts.

Give you a lesson and an example for free. Charles Schumer drafted and pushed a bill that would ban any cartridge capable of defeating police body armor. This would have banned all rifle cartridges and some handgun cartridges. But wait theres more……the lesson……there was no stipulation on what vest thickness AKA threat level would be used. So the authorities could simply reduce the threat level and make virtually all cartridges illegal. Schumer’s bill would have essentially banned guns without actually banning the gun.

So you... like... you think I'm reading your messages and taking them seriously? I read your OP message. Why would I think of you as a serious voice here?

I haven’t been college educated or trained in perfect sentence structure like many of the leftists on this and other threads. What I do possess is common sense and the ability to think critically.

Well, it you want to demonstrate that, I would be happy. Instead, you make childish attacks on "Leftists" (whatever those are).

That's not common sense or critical thought... trust me.

I assume that everyone is lying and seek the answer myself unlike leftists who consume the talking points of their puppet masters, like Al Gore consumes carbon credits.

Jeez, you've got the world figured out, and you didn't even have to educate yourself in order to do that!

What are you doing -- drinking some kind of special Kool-aid or something?

For example I was once unsure about whether the 2nd amendment was a militia right.

You should have come here and asked me. I am always happy to help anyone understand the founders' intent. I possess common sense and the ability to think critically, you know.

Maybe the highly intelligent leftists were right. So I researched the writings and words of our founders and got to the truth. I learned that leftists, while highly educated, are tremendously agenda driven and lack honor and integrity. They will say and do anything necessary to achieve their agenda. I also learned that while book smart they are usually dumber than a bag of bricks when trying to think critically. In closing do yourself a favor and actually study the issue you debate. You won’t get stomped or have the brakes beaten out of your position if you did.

So you convinced yourself that all your enemies are dumbasses and evil?

That's quite the trick. I wonder why all our ignorant and uneducated guys haven't figured out how to do that.

 

[Ambig]

Why do you think destroying other countries' ships in international waters is legitimate self defense?

OK, OK, he can use a smaller nuke and wait until they're closer.

That'll still work.

(And they're not ships. They're warships, intent on invading.)

 

[RF667799]

OK, OK, he can use a smaller nuke and wait until they're closer.

That'll still work.

(And they're not ships. They're warships, intent on invading.)

How does he know this?

 

[ataraxia]

It isn't my logic or arguments, and your posts are directed to me.

You’re the one telling us we have no right to ask about “need” when talking about second amendment rights to arms or consider public safety/security issues .

The second amendment is primarily about fighting government tyranny, not personal safety.

Backpedaling now?

 

[ataraxia]

What?

You heard it right. The 2 A was written primarily to fight government tyranny. Tactical nuclear arms would be pretty important for that. Why is this so confusing for you?

 

[Ambig]

How does he know this?

He watches the news.

 

[RF667799]

You’re the one telling us we have no right to ask about “need” when talking about second amendment rights to arms or consider public safety/security issues .

The second amendment is primarily about fighting government tyranny, not personal safety.

Backpedaling now?

You can ask about need all you like. I'll probably just point out it's subjective.

 

[RF667799]

He watches the news.

The talking heads are aware of the intent of the Russians?

 

[RF667799]

You heard it right. The 2 A was written primarily to fight government tyranny. Tactical nuclear arms would be pretty important for that. Why is this so confusing for you?

It isn't confusing. It's just amusing watching you point out that killing thousands of peaceful people is legitimate self defense. And another guy who us going ever deeper through the looking glass, trying to tell a story about killing people with nukes while not harming anyone.

 

[Ambig]

The talking heads are aware of the intent of the Russians?

Well, the Russians announced their invasion plans for about six months before they headed our way with their warships... so yeah.

 

[RF667799]

Well, the Russians announced their invasion plans for about six months before they headed our way with their warships... so yeah.

Well those are some dumbasses, eh? So why didn't the US government carry out this preemptive nuclear strike you think is called for?

 

[Ambig]

Well those are some dumbasses, eh?

Yeah, the did the same thing with Ukraine, massing their troops at the border and issuing war threats.

I guess they have their reasons, but it does seem a bit dumbassish to me.

So why didn't the US government carry out this preemptive nuclear strike you think is called for?

The private citizen beat them to it. A real patriot.

 

[RF667799]

Yeah, the did the same thing with Ukraine, massing their troops at the border and issuing war threats.

I guess they have their reasons, but it does seem a bit dumbassish to me.

The private citizen beat them to it. A real patriot.

But being a real patriot, he would support the idea of preemptive nuclear strikes.

 

[Ambig]

But being a real patriot, he would support the idea of preemptive nuclear strikes.

Of course. He's defending the nation. What's more patriotic than that?

 

[RF667799]

Of course. He's defending the nation. What's more patriotic than that?

Then it appears "irrational dumbass" and "patriot" are not mutually exclusive terms. I think I already knew that.

 

[poppopfox]

You seem compelled to make this thread about me, personally.

I can see how a narcissist would think that.

I suggest starting a different thread for that purpose, and maybe I'll happen along and see how you're doing with it.

I can see how a narcissist would suggest that.

Can you now defend the OP, or is one not a staunch supporter of gun rights?

 

[Ambig]

Then it appears "irrational dumbass" and "patriot" are not mutually exclusive terms. I think I already knew that.

Yeah, we saw a great example of that on Jan6, when a bunch of Trumper dumbasses raged through our Capitol shouting for the VP's head while calling themselves patriots.

So I agree.

 

[RF667799]

I can see how a narcissist would think that.

I can see how a narcissist would suggest that.

Can you now defend the OP, or is one not a staunch supporter of gun rights?

The post I was responding to, out of narcissism:

I know, but he does like to pretend so with those compelling arguments he tosses from the peanut gallery, example below,



and he does like to throw that dishonesty claim at others as well!

 

[Somerville]

As with many other posters here on the DP forums, Daddyo and braindrain show their ignorance of American History with every comment in regards to the Second Amendment.

One example of legal codes in the 18th century, in Boston, following the finish of the Revolution, a law was passed that said citizens [white males] were allowed to keep a firearm in their residence but no gunpowder was to be present in the home.

That's interesting. Where can I read more?

You claim I am showing my ignorance and yet you do nothing to demonstrate that. Hmmmm I wonder why.

A paper that I found in the Fordham Law Review

A Well Regulated Right: The Early American Origins of Gun Control
It is impossible to discuss gun policy in contemporary America without stumbling over the question of what the Second Amendment means.' Few issues in American constitutional law are as bitterly divisive as the meaning of the right to keep and bear arms. Two opposing historical claims have dominated modern Second Amendment debate.' Supporters of more robust gun regulation have generally cast the Amendment as a collective right According to this view, the meaning of the Amendment is shaped by the Preamble affirming the importance of a well regulated militia.' Collective rights theorists argue that the Second Amendment makes it possible for the states to preserve their well regulated militias against the threat of disarmament by the federal government. Gun rights advocates have placed greater stress on the latter part of the Amendment, which asserts the right of the people to keep and bear arms. For supporters of this individual rights view, the right to bear arms is comparable to freedom of the press, and the Constitution provides the same level of protection for guns as it does for words. For the most ardent supporters of this view, the Constitution protects the right of individuals to have firearms for self-protection, hunting, or to wage revolution against the government itself.'
[. . .]
A variety of laws regulating firearms were already in place during the Founding Era. Militia regulations were the most common form of laws pertaining to firearms. Such laws could be quite intrusive, allowing government not only to keep track of who had firearms, but requiring them to report for a muster or face stiff penalties. Regulations governing the storage of gun powder were also common. States prohibited the use of firearms on certain occasions and in certain locations. A variety of race-based exclusions disarmed slaves, and in some cases, free blacks. Loyalty oaths also disarmed portions of the population during the Founding Era.

Examples of laws governing gun powder storage

Act of June 26, 1792, ch. X, 1792 Mass. Acts 208 (regarding the transporting and storage of gun powder in Boston);
Act of Apr. 13, 1784, ch. 28, 1784 N.Y. Laws 627 (regarding the storage of gun powder);
Act of Dec. 6, 1783, ch. CIV, 1783 Pa. Laws 161, ch. MLIX, 11 Pa. Stat. 209 (concerning the securing of the city of Philadelphia from the danger of gunpowder),

So - states and cities passed laws governing the use and ownership of firearms and munitions (gunpowder) before the passage and acceptance of the Second Amendment. They must have all been repealed after the passage of the Amendment - right? Nope. Even more restrictive laws were passed during the Ante Bellum years. Following the War of 1812, first in southern states but later in northern and mid-western states laws were passed against concealed weapons. An Ohio law passed in 1859 stated:
"[W]hoever shall carry a weapon or weapons, concealed on or about his person, such as a pistol, bowie knife, dirk, or any other dangerous weapon, shall be deemed guilty.'

In fact, some towns and states even banned the sale of any weapon, firearm or knife, that could be carried in a concealed manner.

 

[RF667799]

A paper that I found in the Fordham Law Review


Examples of laws governing gun powder storage

So - states and cities passed laws governing the use and ownership of firearms and munitions (gunpowder) before the passage and acceptance of the Second Amendment. They must have all been repealed after the passage of the Amendment - right? Nope. Even more restrictive laws were passed during the Ante Bellum years. Following the War of 1812, first in southern states but later in northern and mid-western states laws were passed against concealed weapons. An Ohio law passed in 1859 stated:
"[W]hoever shall carry a weapon or weapons, concealed on or about his person, such as a pistol, bowie knife, dirk, or any other dangerous weapon, shall be deemed guilty.'

In fact, some towns and states even banned the sale of any weapon, firearm or knife, that could be carried in a concealed manner.

I'm not seeing where that supports the claim that NO gunpowder could be kept in the home.

It's true that concealing a weapon used to be considered evidence of ill intent. Because why would you hide a weapon except with the idea of putting your fellow citizens at a disadvantage?

 

[zsu2357]

If you raise arms against the Govt. you will be stopped by any means necessary. You do know we live in a Democracy right? We settle our differences at the ballot box. If you want to fight tyranny go to Ukraine and help the Ukrainians. They are fighting tyranny.

You do know the u.s. is a republic? Such as: "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands".

 

[iguanaman]

You do know the u.s. is a republic? Such as: "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands".

We are a democratic republic with an emphasis on democratic. A democratic republic elects its leaders just like a Democracy. It is a difference in name only.

 

[Daddyo]

I skunked you on the language thing. Try to be graceful in defeat.

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.

Two separate thoughts. First thought is the militia which our founders deemed necessary for a free state. Then they granted the people the right to keep and bear arms which they clearly said shall not be infringed.

IF it was all about the militia then it would say the right of the militia to keep and bear arms or it would have to specifically say militia members.

No matter because even if your twisted interpretation of the amendment was true and the militia is the people, it still says that right shall not be infringed. So the people, who are expected to be militia members, are guaranteed the right.

You lose either way.

You skunked no one lol.

 

[iguanaman]

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.

Two separate thoughts. First thought is the militia which our founders deemed necessary for a free state. Then they granted the people the right to keep and bear arms which they clearly said shall not be infringed.

IF it was all about the militia then it would say the right of the militia to keep and bear arms or it would have to specifically say militia members.

No matter because even if your twisted interpretation of the amendment was true and the militia is the people, it still says that right shall not be infringed. So the people, who are expected to be militia members, are guaranteed the right.

You lose either way.

You skunked no one lol.

Militia's were made up of "the people". The founders believed that standing armies were the cause of wars. We abandoned militia's for defense over 100 years ago making the entire amendment archaic and no longer valid. In short "a well regulated militia" is no longer " necessary to the security of a free state" we have the U.S. military for our security.