The facts about the second amendment and gun rights[W:80, 194]

[TurtleDude]

I'll tell you what -- I never spoke to my religion profs when I wanted to learn about constitutional law.

and I am sure those who interpret greek literature don't consult with say Akhil Reed Amar or Sanford Levinson or David Koppel or Eugene Volokh for their legal opinion on the inner meaning of the Iliad

 

[Jerry]

Did you just Godwin my thread, Jerry?

I sure did.

Godwin's law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies) is an assertion made by Mike Godwin in 1990 that has become an Internet adage. It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1." In other words, Godwin said that, given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope—someone inevitably makes a comparison to Hitler or the Nazis.

Godwin's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Guy Incognito]

So the second amendment guarantees the right to use a gun if you are called to militia service? Why would that need to be codified?

No, it guarantees that the federal government cannot make laws that infringe on the rights of the states to maintain militias.

I saw the one you quoted, and despite your insistence that there are many more, I can't find them.

Look harder.

 

[Republic Now!]

No, it guarantees that the federal government cannot make laws that infringe on the rights of the states to maintain militias.

Ah, I get it now. You're of the mindset that it is a collective right, not an individual one.

Look harder.

I've looked hard enough.

 

[Harshaw]

its funny that in some threads were are told that their intent controls and in others we are told their opinions are worthless since they were slavers or tolerated slavers

We're also told that an inability to refute something means it's right.

 

[Republic Now!]

We're also told that an inability to refute something means it's right.

Nothing can be refuted if you choose to ignore the other person's argument and just reaffirm your own position as a "fact."

 

[Harshaw]

Nothing can be refuted if you choose to ignore the other person's argument and just reaffirm your own position as a "fact."

That presents a rather large problem for one who makes the claim, then.

 

[Guy Incognito]

I've looked hard enough.

Obviously you haven't.

 

[TurtleDude]

Obviously you haven't.

Yes he has, there is nothing that legitimately contradicts the standard model

 

[Harshaw]

Yes he has, there is nothing that legitimately contradicts the standard model

Guy's ignorant bleating on this reminds me of someone in the Conspiracy Theories section braying about what some astrophysicist said about the Towers collapsing. Whoever it was said "he's an astrophysicist!" and claimed it meant he was a super-duper-uber-scientist, so his word on it was like God's. Never mind that astrophysicist need not and generally do not know much about things like metallurgy and structural engineering, which are actually relevant disciplines.

So it is with Guy's "historian." Of course, Guy still has not refuted Levinson's and Reynolds's takedowns of him.

 

[Master PO]

"Arms in the hands of individual citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defesce of the country,the over-throw of tyranny,or in private self-defense." --john adams: a Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, at 475, (Philadelphia 1788)

"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms," which is from Jefferson's draft of the Virginia Constitution. --Thomas Jefferson

“And that the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms…”– Samuel Adams, printed in “Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,” pp. 86-87 (Peirce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)

 

[Guy Incognito]

These lists of miscellaneous quotations are tedious. They don't prove your point at all.

"Arms in the hands of individual citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defesce of the country,the over-throw of tyranny,or in private self-defense." --john adams: a Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, at 475, (Philadelphia 1788)

This is just a description of what a militia is. It doesn't prove you point.

"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms," which is from Jefferson's draft of the Virginia Constitution. --Thomas Jefferson

This is part of the Virginia Constitution, so it's irrelevant. Do you honest think it's relevant?

“And that the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms…”– Samuel Adams, printed in “Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,” pp. 86-87 (Peirce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)

Again, this is just a description of the militia.

:lol:

Seriously, these random quotes you get from guncite or whatever do not help you at all. This is the sort of thing makes the pro-gun side look so stupid.

 

[Harshaw]

These lists of miscellaneous quotations are tedious. They don't prove your point at all.



This is just a description of what a militia is. It doesn't prove you point.



This is part of the Virginia Constitution, so it's irrelevant. Do you honest think it's relevant?



Again, this is just a description of the militia.

:lol:

Seriously, these random quotes you get from guncite or whatever do not help you at all. This is the sort of thing makes the pro-gun side look so stupid.

No, they all blow your stupid theories out of the water. Understandable that you will not admit it, but they do.

No wonder you have not presented a refutation of Levinson and Reynolds.

 

[Master PO]

These lists of miscellaneous quotations are tedious. They don't prove your point at all.



This is just a description of what a militia is. It doesn't prove you point.



This is part of the Virginia Constitution, so it's irrelevant. Do you honest think it's relevant?



Again, this is just a description of the militia.

:lol:

Seriously, these random quotes you get from guncite or whatever do not help you at all. This is the sort of thing makes the pro-gun side look so stupid.

really, it shows what is in the minds of these men........and its clear it about people being able to have firearms for their own protection, ...against tyranny of government.........in fact the latter............this is stated in the congressional debates over the 2nd amendment.


The House again resolved itself into a committee, Mr. Boudinot in the chair, on the proposed amendments to the constitution. The third clause of the fourth proposition in the report was taken into consideration, being as follows: "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

Mr. Gerry.--This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms.

 

[Guy Incognito]

really, it shows what is in the minds of these men........and its clear it about people being able to have firearms for their own protection, ...against tyranny of government.........in fact the latter............this is stated in the congressional debates over the 2nd amendment.


The House again resolved itself into a committee, Mr. Boudinot in the chair, on the proposed amendments to the constitution. The third clause of the fourth proposition in the report was taken into consideration, being as follows: "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

Mr. Gerry.--This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms.

You won't have any trouble showing the founders believed in an individual right; they just didn't put it in the second amendment. As I have repeatedly, the founders considered the individual right a part of natural law. It was no more a part of the second amendment in their mind than it was part of the first amendment.

So your quotes prove nothing.

 

[Master PO]

You won't have any trouble showing the founders believed in an individual right; they just didn't put it in the second amendment. As I have repeatedly, the founders considered the individual right a part of natural law. It was no more a part of the second amendment in their mind than it was part of the first amendment.

So your quotes prove nothing.

the founders laid prohibition(s) on the federal government, ...you see it as 1, and i see it as 2.....in the 2ND

they will make no laws concerning the militia [since the president does control them when called into service], and the right of the people KEEP and bare arms.

 

[Guy Incognito]

the founders laid prohibition(s) on the federal government, ...you see it as 1, and i see it as 2.....in the 2ND

they will make no laws concerning the militia [since the president does control them when called into service], and the right of the people KEEP and bare arms.

"Keep and bear arms" means serving in the militia.

 

[blackjack50]

"Keep and bear arms" means serving in the militia.

No. Possess and use arms. You don't need to be in a militia to do that. And our Supreme Court has ruled that as an individual right. End of discussion.

 

[Guy Incognito]

No. Possess and use arms. You don't need to be in a militia to do that. And our Supreme Court has ruled that as an individual right. End of discussion.

No. It's a legal term of art. When you try to interpret it as "possess and use" it is an anachronistic reading.

If you are not ignorant of the historical context, then you understand that "keep and bear arms" referred only to militia service and did not mean "possess and use" in an individual sense.

 

[Harshaw]

No. It's a legal term of art. When you try to interpret it as "possess and use" it is an anachronistic reading.

If you are not ignorant of the historical context, then you understand that "keep and bear arms" referred only to militia service and did not mean "possess and use" in an individual sense.

I'm beginning to think that you might never attempt to refute Levinson or Reynolds. Interesting.

 

[TurtleDude]

"Keep and bear arms" means serving in the militia.

No it doesn't. that is a lie you have made up in order to support your desire to get rid of a constitutional right of the people to own firearms

 

[TurtleDude]

No. It's a legal term of art. When you try to interpret it as "possess and use" it is an anachronistic reading.

If you are not ignorant of the historical context, then you understand that "keep and bear arms" referred only to militia service and did not mean "possess and use" in an individual sense.

wrong again, and since you have never refuted my comments (and given I am a legal expert on this topic), they stand as unrebutted. THe second Amendment recognized an individual right of citizens to keep, bear, possess, collect, polish, accumulate, store, trade, sell, buy, and use in lawful ways arms such as muskets, pistols, rifles, shotguns, dirks, daggers, pikes, knives, swords, rapiers, clubs, coshes, nunchucks, brass knuckles, slungshots, saps, batons, spears, longbows, crossbows, flat bows, spikes, darts, shuriken , staffs, kama, and PR-24s

 

[Harshaw]

wrong again, and since you have never refuted my comments (and given I am a legal expert on this topic), they stand as unrebutted. THe second Amendment recognized an individual right of citizens to keep, bear, possess, collect, polish, accumulate, store, trade, sell, buy, and use in lawful ways arms such as muskets, pistols, rifles, shotguns, dirks, daggers, pikes, knives, swords, rapiers, clubs, coshes, nunchucks, brass knuckles, slungshots, saps, batons, spears, longbows, crossbows, flat bows, spikes, darts, shuriken , staffs, kama, and PR-24s

And nine days later, it remains unrebutted and unrefuted.

 

[TurtleDude]

And nine days later, it remains unrebutted and unrefuted.

Guy apparently has put me on ignore since I generally fold spindle mutilate and bend the crappy anti gun arguments he crafts that pretend to be pro gun