The Second Amendment ONLY applies to Americans in the military (full-time or reserves)

[RF667799]

So you would have no problem with people carrying mini nuke bombs in their pockets and having a sherman tank as their daily driver? After all, bombs and tanks don't kill people, the people using them do.

The question with dangerous 'equipment' that multiplies peoples ability to do the evil that will be done, is where do you draw the line on the level of multiplication you allow. We don't allow nukes, tanks etc because they are potentially massive multipliers of evil. Guns are a much higher multiplier than knives or hammers etc. It is just a question of where you draw the line vs the number of deaths you are ok with. Some place a higher value on human lives than others.

I find it pretty consistently true that posts that begin with "So...", are strawman deflection.

 

[Rich2018]

When 2A was written it was legal to marry a 10 or 12 year old girl. Legal to pollute rivers. Legal to kill the 'natives' maybe, or at least steal their land? Legal to clear cut native forests. Legal to do a lot of stuff that we today know is wrong because our society has learned and evolved. Chaining yourself to ideals, laws etc that were written for an entirely different society in a very different world a long time ago is something that should be questioned.

The US does, by any logical external comparison, have a problem with people dying by gun. If the sole reason is a centuries old 'concept' that has never been made more relevant to match
todays world, that should be a serious discussion. If not, why not race off and marry your 10 year old cousin etc etc.......

Not to mention clause 3 of the Constitution that incredibly read:

"No person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due."

Where was the "land of the free" that day ?

 

[Fledermaus]

I find it pretty consistently true that posts that begin with "So...", are strawman deflection.

Indeed.

 

[Rich2018]

So you would have no problem with people carrying mini nuke bombs in their pockets and having a sherman tank as their daily driver? After all, bombs and tanks don't kill people, the people using them do.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people....but the gun sure helps.

 

[Fledermaus]

Guns don't kill people, people kill people....but the gun sure helps.

Except when it doesn't

 

[Ishm]

I find it pretty consistently true that posts that begin with "So...", are strawman deflection.

You prefer to make statements like the above rather than addressing the content. Talking about "deflection" why is that?

 

[Ishm]

Guns don't kill people, people kill people....but the gun sure helps.

I'm not anti gun, nor even convinced there is a workable solution in the US, but that doesn't mean that the problem doesn't exist. Be interesting to poll a question such as - "if better gun control could save over 10,000 US lives per year, would you support the following control options x,y,z etc?

 

[RF667799]

You prefer to make statements like the above rather than addressing the content. Talking about "deflection" why is that?

Your post quoted mine, but had no relevance to it. That's why I didn't care to address the content.

 

[Rich2018]

I'm not anti gun, nor even convinced there is a workable solution in the US, but that doesn't mean that the problem doesn't exist. Be interesting to poll a question such as - "if better gun control could save over 10,000 US lives per year, would you support the following control options x,y,z etc?

I'm not anti-gun either

Just anti-people having guns - though even I accept that some guns are necessary.

 

[RF667799]

I'm not anti-gun either

Just anti-people having guns - though even I accept that some guns are necessary.

Now, now. How many times have you objected that you actually are in favor of people having guns, even given your proposed, desired gun ban?

Yes, your position is that incoherent.

 

[Rich2018]

Be interesting to poll a question such as - "if better gun control could save over 10,000 US lives per year, would you support the following control options x,y,z etc?

A poster on her called the numbers killed in shootings as "insignificant"

Gun owners won't ever embrace any gun control that means them losing their precious toys, they'd rather see the world burn.

 

[RF667799]

A poster on her called the numbers killed in shootings as "insignificant"

Gun owners won't ever embrace any gun control that means them losing their precious toys, they'd rather see the world burn.

Meaningless

 

[Rich2018]

By the way.

I do not begin to care how the SCOTUS 'interpreted' the Constitution.

The SCOTUS is not allowed to do ANYTHING but base their verdicts on the Constitution AS WRITTEN....

But it is the task of the SC to interpret what the Constitution means with what is WRITTEN.

And the vague and ambiguous nature of the Constitution, sadly gives the SC great scope in its interpretation.

 

[The Work Outing]

But it is the task of the SC to interpret what the Constitution means with what is WRITTEN.

And the vague and ambiguous nature of the Constitution, sadly gives the SC great scope in its interpretation.

I understand what you are saying.

But as I have attempted to point out in this thread.
By using proper grammar/English language rules?

The Second Amendment ONLY applies to Americans in the military (full-time or reserves)

Not according to the framers In their own words: "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" So the "security" of a free state is dependent on the existence of a militia. Wouldn't that mean...

debatepolitics.com

Something the Founding Fathers were (obviously) ENORMOUSLY more skilled at than most people today are.

It is obvious that the portion: 'of the people to keep and bear Arms'?
Are one/two prepositional phrases.
That means they CANNOT be the subject of the Amendment.

The SCOTUS should know this.
But they either ignore the fact or are unaware of it.

The text is clear in this regard.
The Second Amendment is about the Militia...NOT the masses having guns at home to protect themselves from burglars.
The SCOTUS had no business interpreting it.

Now?
What is a 'well regulated Militia' is vague (I assume the FF's intended that to be determined in other rules/laws).
But, the 10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes clarifies that.

10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes

www.law.cornell.edu

Thus...the Second Amendment is actually not vague.
But it DOES require the reader to be well trained in the English language.
Something few Americans are today.

In my opinion, the SCOTUS broke their oath(s) in interpreting the 2'nd Amendment in the way they have.
ESPECIALLY Scalia.


BTW - I think you are doing a fab job in this thread.
Making cogent points and keeping your cool.

 

[Rich2018]

I understand what you are saying.

But as I have attempted to point out in this thread.
By using proper grammar/English language rules?

Something the Founding Fathers were (obviously) ENORMOUSLY more skilled at than most people today are.

Grammar rules change over time.
It is a nonsense that the mention of a militia is irrelevant to the 2A. un owners would have you believe that is is and that the meaning of the 2A would not change if it read:
"Roses are red, violets are blue, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It is obvious that the portion: 'of the people to keep and bear Arms'?
Are one/two prepositional phrases.
That means they CANNOT be the subject of the Amendment.

The SCOTUS should know this.
But they either ignore the fact or are unaware of it.

The text is clear in this regard.
The SCOTUS had no business interpreting it.

I disagree. It's obvious to me that the framers of the 2A meant to link the right to bear arms with the maintenance of a militia. Otherwise, why mention it at all ?

I think the grammatical analysis is akin to grasping at straws and sadly those proponents have won for now.

IMO, the justification for the 2A was lost the moment the need for a militia was.

BTW - I think you are doing a fab job in this thread.
Making cogent points and keeping your cool.

Thank you, I try to keep my cool but it's hard sometimes with all the vitriol that spouted by some gun owners (or who claim to be so) on here

I also have a couple of stalkers on here who constantly reply to my posts in some desperate cry for attention (and that borders on baiting). Check out their posts for a good laugh.

 

[The Work Outing]

I cited the miller case. are you not aware of its holding. are you unable to google it? and your comment about dementia is far more an ad hom attack than anything I have said-I merely attack your stupid posts

I don't care what you ****ing 'cite'.
I am not running around looking up cases some angry, ****ing old man on a chat forum posts.
I have a life you know?
(something - judging by your post count - you do not)

Post a ****ing link, grandpa.
If you have enough time to post 268,000(!!!) posts.
You have enough time to post a ****ing link.

As I typed:

'Until you are ready to debate properly and not like a salivating adolescent on too much Ritalin?
AND are prepared to back up EVERY POINT you make with links to unbiased, factual evidence (as I have - for the most part)?
We are done here.'


You have not got the guts to debate me in private.
So you run to the mods to get me off your back.
Then you run to the mods to whine about be making a joke about your old age.
(don't bother denying it - I will NOT believe you)
It seems all you are good for is arrogant posts and running to the mods when someone hurts your whittle feewings.

You act like a sad, bitter, old man.
Who comes on here to pretend to be something he is not, vent and spew forth nothing but bile.

Again...either post links to your points, OLD MAN.
OR stop wasting my ****ing time...grandpa.

 

[TurtleDude]

I don't care what you ****ing 'cite'.
I am not running around looking up cases some useless, arrogant, ****ing old man on a chat forum posts.
I have a life you know?
(something - judging by your post count - you do not)

Post a ****ing link, grandpa.
If you have enough time to post 268,000(!!!) posts.
You have enough time to post a ****ing link.

As I typed:

'Until you are ready to debate properly and not like a salivating adolescent on too much Ritalin?
AND are prepared to back up EVERY POINT you make with links to unbiased, factual evidence (as I have - for the most part)?
We are done here.'


You have not got the guts to debate me in private.
So you run to the mods to get me off your back.
Then you run to the mods to whine about be making a joke about your old age.
(don't bother denying it - I will NOT believe you)
It seems all you are good for is arrogant posts and running to the mods when someone hurts your whittle feewings.

You act like a sad, bitter, old man.
Who comes on here to pretend to be something he is not, vent and spew forth nothing but bile.

Again...either post link to your points OLD MAN.
OR stop wasting my ****ing time...grandpa.

Your insult filled post shows you are losing this discussion

 

[Rich2018]

Your insult filled post shows you are losing this discussion

You didn't go running to the mods though did you.

Us guys over 60, should take pride in our experience.

 

[The Work Outing]

Grammar rules change over time.
It is a nonsense that the mention of a militia is irrelevant to the 2A. un owners would have you believe that is is and that the meaning of the 2A would not change if it read:
"Roses are red, violets are blue, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

With respect.
It does not matter now grammar rules change in this regard.

The rules I am citing are STILL the rules of today.
They have NOT changed.
It's just most people are not aware of them.

Thank the US public school system.

I disagree. It's obvious to me that the framers of the 2A meant to link the right to bear arms with the maintenance of a militia. Otherwise, why mention it at all ?

I think the grammatical analysis is akin to grasping at straws and sadly those proponents have won for now.

IMO, the justification for the 2A was lost the moment the need for a militia was.

I disagree - again with respect.
What the FF's 'meant' is irrelevant, IMO.

Laws are to be followed as written.
Not by what individuals decide those who wrote the laws intended.
'Well, your honor?
I believe - from studying his writings - that when blah blah wrote that murder law?
He meant that it is okay to murder on Friday afternoons.'

And the reason for the 'bear arms' part is because the nature of the 'well regulated Militia' back then.
In those days?
The military was made up of a small number of full time soldiers.
And a huge militia to back them up in war.
(the way it should be - IMO)
So...it was critical that the civilians in the Militia had guns that they could bring with them to the fight.
Thus...the civilians in the Militia HAD to be armed.
Just like the Swiss reservists are today.
They go home with their small arms (at least - they used to)...including assault rifles.

Thank you, I try to keep my cool but it's hard sometimes with all the vitriol that spouted by some gun owners (or who claim to be so) on here

You do it well.
That is my Achilles heel on sites like this.
I don't take shit, I lash out...and get banned.
I imagine I will be banned from here relatively soon for that reason.

I also have a couple of stalkers on here who constantly reply to my posts in some desperate cry for attention (and that borders on baiting). Check out their posts for a good laugh.

I usually just put people like that on 'Ignore'.

But again...I admire how you keep your cool 'under fire'.
I wish I could.
I have only been here a few weeks and already been temp banned.

 

[The Work Outing]

Your insult filled post shows you are losing this discussion

And you taking these chats WAY too seriously AND actually trying to 'win' a chat?
Shows that you are losing your...

I think you know what I meant to say.

Bye...old man.

 

[RF667799]

Grammar rules change over time.
It is a nonsense that the mention of a militia is irrelevant to the 2A. un owners would have you believe that is is and that the meaning of the 2A would not change if it read:
"Roses are red, violets are blue, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."



I disagree. It's obvious to me that the framers of the 2A meant to link the right to bear arms with the maintenance of a militia. Otherwise, why mention it at all ?

I think the grammatical analysis is akin to grasping at straws and sadly those proponents have won for now.

IMO, the justification for the 2A was lost the moment the need for a militia was.



Thank you, I try to keep my cool but it's hard sometimes with all the vitriol that spouted by some gun owners (or who claim to be so) on here

I also have a couple of stalkers on here who constantly reply to my posts in some desperate cry for attention (and that borders on baiting). Check out their posts for a good laugh.

You would do well to not accuse posters of stalking you. Responding to posts you write on an open forum, is not stalking.

 

[RF667799]

I understand what you are saying.

But as I have attempted to point out in this thread.
By using proper grammar/English language rules?

The Second Amendment ONLY applies to Americans in the military (full-time or reserves)

Not according to the framers In their own words: "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" So the "security" of a free state is dependent on the existence of a militia. Wouldn't that mean...

debatepolitics.com

Something the Founding Fathers were (obviously) ENORMOUSLY more skilled at than most people today are.

It is obvious that the portion: 'of the people to keep and bear Arms'?
Are one/two prepositional phrases.
That means they CANNOT be the subject of the Amendment.

The SCOTUS should know this.
But they either ignore the fact or are unaware of it.

The text is clear in this regard.
The Second Amendment is about the Militia...NOT the masses having guns at home to protect themselves from burglars.
The SCOTUS had no business interpreting it.

Now?
What is a 'well regulated Militia' is vague (I assume the FF's intended that to be determined in other rules/laws).
But, the 10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes clarifies that.

10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes

www.law.cornell.edu

Thus...the Second Amendment is actually not vague.
But it DOES require the reader to be well trained in the English language.
Something few Americans are today.

In my opinion, the SCOTUS broke their oath(s) in interpreting the 2'nd Amendment in the way they have.
ESPECIALLY Scalia.


BTW - I think you are doing a fab job in this thread.
Making cogent points and keeping your cool.

Your argument completely ignores that "the right" is not a prepositional phrase. I believe it might completely ignore the existence of those words a together.

 

[Rich2018]

With respect.
It does not matter now grammar rules change in this regard.

The rules I am citing are STILL the rules of today.
They have NOT changed.
It's just most people are not aware of them.

Thank the US public school system.

The US public school system had many deficiencies it must be admitted

Never-the-less, to use a grammatical argument to argue that the 2A does not tie the maintenance of a militia to the right to bear arms is a nonsense.

Laws are to be followed as written.
Not by what individuals decide those who wrote the laws intended.

If we ignore the intent, are we not subverting the law itself ?

And the reason for the 'bear arms' part is because the nature of the 'well regulated Militia' back then.
In those days?
The military was made up of a small number of full time soldiers.
And a huge militia to back them up in war.
(the way it should be - IMO)
So...it was critical that the civilians in the Militia had guns that they could bring with them to the fight.
Thus...the civilians in the Militia HAD to be armed.
Just like the Swiss reservists are today.
They go home with their small arms (at least - they used to)...including assault rifles.

Well I wouldn't say the militia was that huge and it performed rather abysmally in the War of 1812 - especially at the Battle of Bladensburg
A militia today would be a joke - it can never stand up to regular troops.

The Swiss model has never been tested...it remains to be seen if those reservists with rifles in their homes would be of any use.

You do it well.
That is my Achilles heel on sites like this.
I don't take shit, I lash out...and get banned.

Actually I've been suspended before and each infraction genuinely surprises me as it's never my intention to hurl abuse
I have learned the hard way what is considered an infraction on here.

I usually just put people like that on 'Ignore'.

I get a kick out of reading their desperate cries for attention - see if you can identify them both.

But again...I admire how you keep your cool 'under fire'.
I wish I could.

I guess it just takes practice...and an ability to deal with inventive in humorous ways
Sometimes nothing is better than a courteous reply.

 

[RF667799]

I get a kick out of reading their desperate cries for attention - see if you can identify them both.

How about you cowboy up and identify those you've accused of stalking, yourself?

Then we can examine whether you have also claimed to never read their posts.

 

[Rich2018]

I imagine I will be banned from here relatively soon for that reason.

Your imagination proved prophetical.