Texas is one step closer to becoming Second Amendment compliant

[brianpatrick]

I didn't say that I was asking you a question.

Did you see the little question mark at the end that's a good indication.

Thought it was a rhetorical question so I ignored that.

 

[CLAX1911]

I can’t quit my day job, I’m the boss. Well, I could sell it, but I’m not ready for that yet.

Well good you don't make a very good comic.

 

[CLAX1911]

Thought it was a rhetorical question so I ignored that.

Except for you answered it.

I don't think you know what the word ignored means.

 

[CLAX1911]

That’s a good reason to own a gun.

Wanting one is a good enough reason to own one.

 

[Bodi]

You obviously need to read the Second Amendment. It says that the people have the right to keep and bear arms.

Back in the day the right to bear arms meant for military service and that also backs up the 2nd Amendments assertion that those that bear arms be part of the militia.

Which means that the people may carry their arms concealed or openly, as they desire, without any government permits, licensing, registration, or any other infringement.

Wrong.

 

[Bodi]

I'm less concerned with "who" and more concerned with "what." In Alaska I am not arming myself to protect myself from my fellow humans. Those who are not well armed in Alaska will eventually be taught that they may be clever, but they are not on top of the food chain without those clever tools we humans invented.

Moose are the number one killer of humans in Alaska. Bears are a distant second, and there has only been one death by wolves in the 30 years I've lived in Alaska. As long as you are not running, bicycling down, or setting up your camp on (like Timothy Tredwell), a game trail in the woods like a moron, you are pretty safe from predators. But moose are psychotic and will attack for no reason. People think we're armed for bear in Alaska, but I'm armed to drop an 8-foot tall, 1,500 pound charging moose

Instead of buying guns to kill innocent animals trying to live their lives in areas that you choose to go into, maybe you should stay the hell out or at least fight a fair fight with a knife, a slingshot or pole.

Government has no business telling anyone how they should bear their arms. That choice is left entirely up to the individual carrying the firearms. Any kind of permit or license is a government infringement, and therefore a violation of the Second Amendment.

Many governments ban firearms completely... the world is wrong and you are right... is that your argument?

 

[ataraxia]

How does mocking yourself show anything?

I am not the one doing it. You think it’s the right of any fool to haul around any weapon on the streets they want. It’s hilarious. You should listen to yourself. It’s like a comedy routine.

 

[CLAX1911]

I am not the one doing it. You think it’s your right to haul around any weapon on the streets you want. It’s hilarious. You should listen to yourself. It’s like a comedy routine.

I'm sorry you're you don't see it for a bit for me to stop you from falling all the sword by all means proceed.

 

[Glitch]

Back in the day the right to bear arms meant for military service and that also backs up the 2nd Amendments assertion that those that bear arms be part of the militia.

Wrong.

You clearly know nothing about the Second Amendment or US history. The Second Amendment originates from the ancient English right for all freemen to be armed that was codified in the Magna Carta of 1215. The right of the people to keep and bear arms has absolutely nothing to do with military service or the militia, and it never has.

I haven't been eligible for military service or a militia in more than 20 years, but I continue to have the individual right to keep and bear arms without government infringement.

 

[Glitch]

Instead of buying guns to kill innocent animals trying to live their lives in areas that you choose to go into, maybe you should stay the hell out or at least fight a fair fight with a knife, a slingshot or pole.

Many governments ban firearms completely... the world is wrong and you are right... is that your argument?

This is stereotypical city critter mentality. You are one of those people who would starve to death if your meat did not come cellophane wrapped from a grocery store. You are so completely removed from reality that you have absolutely no clue where your food originates or how it gets to your kitchen table. That is just pathetically sad, but not surprising among uneducated leftists.

No other government on the planet recognizes their citizens individual right to keep and bear arms. The US is unique in that respect, and many other aspects when it concerns liberty. No other nation on the planet recognizes the multiple individual rights of their citizens like the US. Certainly not New Zealand. According to the New Zealand constitution you are a subject, not a citizen. How does it feel to be a government slave?

 

[natman]

Back in the day the right to bear arms meant for military service and that also backs up the 2nd Amendments assertion that those that bear arms be part of the militia.

Wrong on both counts. Let's dispel with the wishful thinking fantasy and take a look at what the Second Amendment actually means:

United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.
SCOTUS, DC v Heller, page 2

We think that JUSTICE GINSBURG accurately captured the natural meaning of “bear arms.” Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of “offensive or defensive action,” it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization.
ibid, page 11

In any event, the meaning of “bear arms” that petitioners and JUSTICE STEVENS propose is not even the (sometimes) idiomatic meaning. Rather, they manufacture a hybrid definition, whereby “bear arms” connotes the actual carrying of arms (and therefore is not really an idiom) but only in the service of an organized militia. No dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have been apprised of no source that indicates that it carried that meaning at the time of the founding.
ibid, Page 13

And finally:
Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
ibid, page 1.
[all emphasis added]

So, no, the right to bear arms does not imply military service and there is no assertion anywhere in the Second Amendment that those who bear arms be part of the militia.

For a detailed explanation of the grammar of the Second Amendment, see this post.

 

[Rich2018]

You clearly know nothing about the Second Amendment or US history. The Second Amendment originates from the ancient English right for all freemen to be armed that was codified in the Magna Carta of 1215. The right of the people to keep and bear arms has absolutely nothing to do with military service or the militia, and it never has.

I haven't been eligible for military service or a militia in more than 20 years, but I continue to have the individual right to keep and bear arms without government infringement.

Yes it has, the 2nd Amendment rose from a desire from the states to be able to raise their own military force in emergencies (as defense against a tyrannical government for example)

The right to bear arms was intended that the militia could respond to a call from the state, already armed.

 

[Bodi]

This is stereotypical city critter mentality. You are one of those people who would starve to death if your meat did not come cellophane wrapped from a grocery store. You are so completely removed from reality that you have absolutely no clue where your food originates or how it gets to your kitchen table. That is just pathetically sad, but not surprising among uneducated leftists.

This is so stereotypical of log cabin nutters that enjoy shooting animals with high powered weapons from far away because they are cowards. Nobody needs to hunt in first world nations in order to live...

No other government on the planet recognizes their citizens individual right to keep and bear arms. The US is unique in that respect, and many other aspects when it concerns liberty. No other nation on the planet recognizes the multiple individual rights of their citizens like the US. Certainly not New Zealand. According to the New Zealand constitution you are a subject, not a citizen. How does it feel to be a government slave?

There goes your "based on English law" argument and you clearly know nothing about New Zealand history or government. Just found something and thought that you could make an insult. ... a rather lame one too.

You clearly know nothing about the Second Amendment or US history. The Second Amendment originates from the ancient English right for all freemen to be armed that was codified in the Magna Carta of 1215. The right of the people to keep and bear arms has absolutely nothing to do with military service or the militia, and it never has.

Sure, neither do the Constitutional scholars or places like Cornell that have like minded views that I do. "KNOW NOTHING!!" LOL

 

[Bodi]

Wrong on both counts. Let's dispel with the wishful thinking fantasy and take a look at what the Second Amendment actually means:

United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.
SCOTUS, DC v Heller, page 2

We think that JUSTICE GINSBURG accurately captured the natural meaning of “bear arms.” Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of “offensive or defensive action,” it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization.
ibid, page 11

In any event, the meaning of “bear arms” that petitioners and JUSTICE STEVENS propose is not even the (sometimes) idiomatic meaning. Rather, they manufacture a hybrid definition, whereby “bear arms” connotes the actual carrying of arms (and therefore is not really an idiom) but only in the service of an organized militia. No dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have been apprised of no source that indicates that it carried that meaning at the time of the founding.
ibid, Page 13

And finally:
Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
ibid, page 1.
[all emphasis added]

So, no, the right to bear arms does not imply military service and there is no assertion anywhere in the Second Amendment that those who bear arms be part of the militia.

For a detailed explanation of the grammar of the Second Amendment, see this post.

Yes it does imply that. SCOTUS is not infallible. They get stuff wrong and they got this wrong. Posting SCOTUS stuff to prove SCOTUS was right is like posting a Bible Quote about God to prove that God is real. It is retarded.

 

[natman]

Yes it does imply that. SCOTUS is not infallible. They get stuff wrong and they got this wrong. Posting SCOTUS stuff to prove SCOTUS was right is like posting a Bible Quote about God to prove that God is real. It is retarded.

The Supreme Court gets to define the law and regardless of whether you think it's right, it's still the law. I've shown detailed quotes to back up my opinion, including a detailed analysis of the grammar of the Second Amendment.

So far all you've offered is your high opinion of your own opinion and an insult. So if you think the Supreme Court got it wrong SHOW HOW. Show in similar detail how "Back in the day the right to bear arms meant for military service and that also backs up the 2nd Amendments assertion that those that bear arms be part of the militia."

If you can.

 

[Bodi]

The Supreme Court gets to define the law and regardless of whether you think it's right, it's still the law. I've shown detailed quotes to back up my opinion, including a detailed analysis of the grammar of the Second Amendment.

So far all you've offered is your high opinion of your own opinion and an insult. So if you think the Supreme Court got it wrong SHOW HOW. Get off your lazy butt and show in similar detail how "Back in the day the right to bear arms meant for military service and that also backs up the 2nd Amendments assertion that those that bear arms be part of the militia."

If you can.

This is another failed argument. "SCOTUS is right because they say that they are".

And I never said that it is not the law... I said that the Constitution has been misinterpreted.

And I did not insult you... I said that the logic was lame...

 

[Aunt Antifa]

What's funny is California has decided to pass a $25 tax on all guns sold in California. So what people are probably going to do is cross state lines if they're close enough. I'd spend $150 in gas just to deny California my $25 but then again I'm that way.

So you would drive miles out of your way and greatly overpay for something just to own the libtards?

That’ll show us.

 

[Rich2018]

So you would drive miles out of your way and greatly overpay for something just to own the libtards?

That’ll show us.

So California needs to raise taxes on gas.

 

[natman]

This is another failed argument. "SCOTUS is right because they say that they are".

And I never said that it is not the law... I said that the Constitution has been misinterpreted.

And I did not insult you... I said that the logic was lame...

Still not a shred of evidence to back up your claims.

Again:

So if you think the Supreme Court got it wrong SHOW HOW. Show in similar detail how "Back in the day the right to bear arms meant for military service and that also backs up the 2nd Amendments assertion that those that bear arms be part of the militia."

 

[Aunt Antifa]

So California needs to raise taxes on gas.

that’s great

 

[Bodi]

Still not a shred of evidence to back up your claims.

Again:

So if you think the Supreme Court got it wrong SHOW HOW. Show in similar detail how "Back in the day the right to bear arms meant for military service and that also backs up the 2nd Amendments assertion that those that bear arms be part of the militia."

Doesn't work that way... you said I was wrong. That is fine. Prove it. You did not. All you did was saw SCOTUS is correct because SCOTUS says that they are correct. That is Appeal to Authority and probably another one or two logical fallacies...

 

[Rich2018]

that’s great

Clax won't mind, seemingly he loves teaching liberals a lesson.

 

[natman]

Doesn't work that way... you said I was wrong. That is fine. Prove it. You did not. All you did was saw SCOTUS is correct because SCOTUS says that they are correct. That is Appeal to Authority and probably another one or two logical fallacies...

Let's get the facts straight. YOU started this. YOU said - and I quote:

Back in the day the right to bear arms meant for military service and that also backs up the 2nd Amendments assertion that those that bear arms be part of the militia.

I offered a detailed series of quotes from the US Supreme Court showing how you're wrong. You dismissed them by saying that the Supreme Court was wrong. Period.
I offered a link to a detailed analysis of the grammar of the Second Amendment which showed you're wrong. You ignored it.
The balls still in your court to support your premise. So far you haven't offered a single scrap of evidence to support your case. Put up or shut up.

 

[Bodi]

Let's get the facts straight. YOU started this. YOU said - and I quote:

That is what I just said:

Doesn't work that way... you said I was wrong.(to what I started) That is fine. Prove it. You did not. All you did was saw SCOTUS is correct because SCOTUS says that they are correct. That is Appeal to Authority and probably another one or two logical fallacies...

I offered a detailed series of quotes from the US Supreme Court showing how you're wrong. You dismissed them by saying that the Supreme Court was wrong. Period.
I offered a link to a detailed analysis of the grammar of the Second Amendment which showed you're wrong. You ignored it.

I did not ignore them. It stated why they are irrelevant.

The balls still in your court to support your premise. So far you haven't offered a single scrap of evidence to support your case. Put up or shut up.

Because I am still waiting for you to make a legitimate attempt to refute my premise.

 

[Glitch]

What's funny is California has decided to pass a $25 tax on all guns sold in California. So what people are probably going to do is cross state lines if they're close enough. I'd spend $150 in gas just to deny California my $25 but then again I'm that way.

A better solution would be to leave California - permanently. Do what millions of liberty-minded individuals, including myself, have already done before you and leave the leftist sh*thole that has become California. Montana, Wyoming, or Idaho would be decent choices. Or if you don't like the cold Arizona, Texas, or Florida would be a good choice. Tennessee is also very pro-Second Amendment. Personally, I can't even contemplate living anywhere other than Alaska, but it is an acquired taste. Not suited for everyone.