• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Quiz Question on Second Amendment:

blackjack50

blackjack50

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 14, 2011
Messages
26,629
Reaction score
6,661
Location
Florida
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
f7e3379d87724e23da4d3212da7a5746.jpg


What do you think?
 
Beaudreaux said:
Those are the ones that graduated school prior to not only learning to read.. but to comprehend.
Click to expand...

Well we have whole learning or whatever that bull**** is called these days. Kids only have to learn what doesn't offend them. :lol:
 
American said:
Well we have whole learning or whatever that bull**** is called these days. Kids only have to learn what doesn't offend them. :lol:
Click to expand...

Which obviously includes learning how great Socialism is and that government rescission of our hitherto inalienable rights is in our best interest.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Which obviously includes learning how great Socialism is and that government rescission of our hitherto inalienable rights is in our best interest.
Click to expand...

Well our principles of liberty are obviously flawed, since they were codified by rich, white, slaveowners. This makes those inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness dead wrong. :roll:
 
American said:
Well our principles of liberty are obviously flawed, since they were codified by rich, white, slaveowners. This makes those inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness dead wrong. :roll:
Click to expand...

Of course it does, especially that guy on your mug - he's one of the worst, or so I've been recently told. Why should we care about such things as freedom of speech, or the ability to defend against tyranny, or to be presumed innocent until proven guilty? Wouldn't be so much easier if we were able to stop people from saying mean or dumb things? And wouldn't it be so much safer if the only people that had guns were the government? And, of course, we all know that the police would not arrest you and you wouldn't have to go to court if you weren't guilty of something.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Of course it does, especially that guy on your mug - he's one of the worst, or so I've been recently told. Why should we care about such things as freedom of speech, or the ability to defend against tyranny, or to be presumed innocent until proven guilty? Wouldn't be so much easier if we were able to stop people from saying mean or dumb things? And wouldn't it be so much safer if the only people that had guns were the government? And, of course, we all know that the police would not arrest you and you wouldn't have to go to court if you weren't guilty of something.
Click to expand...

Naturally, because it's a proven fact the government never does anything wrong. See what they don't tell you is that people that are elected, appointed or hired to work for the government, are magically transformed by a secret process that makes them 100% honest, knowledgeable and clean as the wind-driven snow. ;)
 
The bonus question, choice B is where this gets spun. It doesn't say in the 2A "the" free state, it says "a" free state. Back when it was written, well before the standardization of English, it was standard to capitalize both common and proper nouns. Further if "state" was intended to be a proper noun, why is it not plural? The word state as a common noun would refer to a state of mind or a state of being.
 
Bootlace said:
The bonus question, choice B is where this gets spun. It doesn't say in the 2A "the" free state, it says "a" free state. Back when it was written, well before the standardization of English, it was standard to capitalize both common and proper nouns. Further if "state" was intended to be a proper noun, why is it not plural? The word state as a common noun would refer to a state of mind or a state of being.
Click to expand...

What?
 
Renae said:
What?
Click to expand...

I'm talking about the noun "state".

If read as a proper noun, "state" would be the name of one of the states. If read as a common noun, would be the state or condition of something. As in state of the Union.
 
Bootlace said:
I'm talking about the noun "state".

If read as a proper noun, "state" would be the name of one of the states. If read as a common noun, would be the state or condition of something. As in state of the Union.
Click to expand...

Sorry I missed the semantics game you were playing and how it applied to the the OP.
 
Renae said:
Sorry I missed the semantics game you were playing and how it applied to the the OP.
Click to expand...

I'm not playing semantics. If read as a proper noun, the 2A would not apply in Washington D.C. If read as a common noun it would.
 
stonewall50 said:
f7e3379d87724e23da4d3212da7a5746.jpg


What do you think?
Click to expand...

THe People in both cases. But that's not the question. The question is, "well tailored suit" and "well regulated militia"; why do the people count in both?
 
Bootlace said:
I'm not playing semantics. If read as a proper noun, the 2A would not apply in Washington D.C. If read as a common noun it would.
Click to expand...

And that would be quite silly to claim an amendment doesn't apply somewhere in the USA because of a S or a s. I challenge you to justify the logic of your statement without resorting to semantics.
 
Renae said:
And that would be quite silly to claim an amendment doesn't apply somewhere in the USA because of a S or a s. I challenge you to justify the logic of your statement without resorting to semantics.
Click to expand...
Washington D.C is not recognized as a state. If the noun in the 2A is proper then it doesn't apply there. If common, it does. The 2A reads A free state. It does not read the free state, states, or several states. If read as a proper noun, state would indicate a states right issue, as is a government body with authority. If read as a common noun, now it becomes an individual rights issue which is confirmed by SCOTUS.

One of the choices of the quiz for the question of who has the right to keep and bear arms was choice B "the state". Which by default would indicate a proper noun usage, that is what the pro gun control crowd would like it to mean. It doesn't.
 
I haven't seen a single open Lib reply to this thread. I really want to see their answer.
 
Bootlace said:
Washington D.C is not recognized as a state. If the noun in the 2A is proper then it doesn't apply there. If common, it does. The 2A reads A free state. It does not read the free state, states, or several states. If read as a proper noun, state would indicate a states right issue, as is a government body with authority. If read as a common noun, now it becomes an individual rights issue which is confirmed by SCOTUS.

One of the choices of the quiz for the question of who has the right to keep and bear arms was choice B "the state". Which by default would indicate a proper noun usage, that is what the pro gun control crowd would like it to mean. It doesn't.
Click to expand...

I see.
 
Bootlace said:
Washington D.C is not recognized as a state. If the noun in the 2A is proper then it doesn't apply there. If common, it does. The 2A reads A free state. It does not read the free state, states, or several states. If read as a proper noun, state would indicate a states right issue, as is a government body with authority. If read as a common noun, now it becomes an individual rights issue which is confirmed by SCOTUS.

One of the choices of the quiz for the question of who has the right to keep and bear arms was choice B "the state". Which by default would indicate a proper noun usage, that is what the pro gun control crowd would like it to mean. It doesn't.
Click to expand...

And what if it means state as in condition, a free state? This most certainly accords with the founders discussions and intent. There was no need to add any reference to States in the 2nd
 
Last edited:
stonewall50 said:
f7e3379d87724e23da4d3212da7a5746.jpg


What do you think?
Click to expand...
Clothes Free School Zone Act

No clothes allowed in court rooms, jails, bars, or federal buildings.

Businesses can ban clothes by posting a sign to that effect in a conspicuous location. Wearing clothes into a posted facility is criminal trespassing.
 
Last edited:
I don't know why this even continues to come up. It's been seven years now since D.C. v. Heller, and the Supreme Court made clear in that decision that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. The Court also made clear that right predates the Constitution and in no way depends on it for its existence.
 
This is very good. It also shows the veneration for SCOTUS is wholly misplaced: they as a group failed this test for over 70 years. Hopefully, we're at the start of an era when the damage will be undone. Striking down the NFA framework, Brady bill, and FFL stranglehold on sales would be a good start. At the very least, some of the more idiotic provisions and stamp tax requirements (SBR, SBS, suppressors) will go away.
 
matchlight said:
I don't know why this even continues to come up. It's been seven years now since D.C. v. Heller, and the Supreme Court made clear in that decision that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. The Court also made clear that right predates the Constitution and in no way depends on it for its existence.
Click to expand...

that second point utterly destroys the mendacious moon bat mutterings that the second amendment is only about militia service or involves the "right" (LOL) of the federal government to have a militia. of course most of the mutterings come from people who aren't really all that learned on constitutional theory or 18th century history
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom