[W:1311]The Second Amendment - A Military Right to Bear Arms

[haymarket]

I already presented it. Claiming I didn't is a stretch on even your shoddy credibility.

When it comes to the 2nd you claim the strictest interpretation possible when it comes to article one you claim the loosest language possible. That is a double standard.




Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk

In which post did you present the evidence for you claim about my statements?

 

[haymarket]

Look who still doesn't comprehend may not infringe.

Ever get tired of obvious, bull**** circular arguments? Because eventually you always go running back to them like you are afraid of a real conversation.


Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk

As long as the right is honored and can be exercised it has not been infringed. I understand that perfectly because I can read the Second Amendment written in rather plain English.

 

[haymarket]

The War on Drugs is happening right now. It was started by President Johnson. It has been a miserable failure.

We have not had a true actual WAR on anything since we joined the world wide war against the Axis Powers in the 1940's. To call any other government a WAR is a public relations hoax and only the naive and gullible fall for it.

If you want to see a true WAR ON DRUGS, read up on what China did after Mao came to power. That was a WAR ON DRUGS.

 

[haymarket]

Inversion fallacy.

Reticulated cranistan.

 

[Into the Night]

People without government? Where was that?

There i no government in the wilderness. There was no United States government for people that traveled west to new lives and new prospects into what was then the wilderness. There were no States. There was no government when these people stopped and hacked a living out of the wilderness.

They formed their own society. They built the cities you live in today. They CREATED their own government themselves, of their own choosing, and to serve their own needs.

No government to stop them. No government to manage their economy. No government to prevent them from arming themselves as they wished. Just pure capitalism, free market, and guts. THAT's what brought civilization out of the wilderness!

 

[Into the Night]

Not at all. Other people thoughts on the matter must be discussed in national debate also.

Which you are ignoring.

 

[OpportunityCost]

As long as the right is honored and can be exercised it has not been infringed. I understand that perfectly because I can read the Second Amendment written in rather plain English.

False, as an individual right it is infringed at any point that it cannot be exercised in full as each individual wishes to do so. By limiting semi automatics you infringe upon the right to keep and bear by limiting the weapon of choice of individuals.

Not even my words, that was the problem with Heller, specific types of weapons were banned unconstitutionally.

Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk

 

[Into the Night]

Why would anyone do that? Self defense is a innate drive that all animals have in one way or the other. Humans included.

Yet you argued that the right to self defense stems from government granting that right.

Welcome to your new paradox, Hay. Which is it??

 

[haymarket]

There i no government in the wilderness. There was no United States government for people that traveled west to new lives and new prospects into what was then the wilderness. There were no States. There was no government when these people stopped and hacked a living out of the wilderness.

They formed their own society. They built the cities you live in today. They CREATED their own government themselves, of their own choosing, and to serve their own needs.

No government to stop them. No government to manage their economy. No government to prevent them from arming themselves as they wished. Just pure capitalism, free market, and guts. THAT's what brought civilization out of the wilderness!

And in doing all that they created a concept of rights recognized by that same civilization and that same society under the authority of a government of the people and by the people.

 

[Into the Night]

I have over 100,000 posts and am 69 years old. If you can remember everything in other peoples responses in 100,000 posts or what you may have read here - you are a far better person than I am because I simply do not have that ability.

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

Nobody is asking (or cares) what you said in your first post.

 

[haymarket]

Yet you argued that the right to self defense stems from government granting that right.

Welcome to your new paradox, Hay. Which is it??

There is a difference between the innate ability to defend oneself that even animals have and exercise and a right to self defense and what that entails in the law.

One is simply the way things are because of our instincts that we are born with and develop while the other is a legal construct protecting people in certain situations which could otherwise place them in legal jeopardy and peril.

 

[haymarket]

Nobody is asking (or cares) what you said in your first post.

except you - you seem to care deeply. :lamo:lol:

 

[haymarket]

False, as an individual right it is infringed at any point that it cannot be exercised in full as each individual wishes to do so. By limiting semi automatics you infringe upon the right to keep and bear by limiting the weapon of choice of individuals.

Not even my words, that was the problem with Heller, specific types of weapons were banned unconstitutionally.

Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk

What each individual wants to do is not their right unless the government recognizes that behavior as a right.

 

[Into the Night]

Except there is no right to own an AR15 in the first place so that right does not exist to take away.

Yes it does. Neither can the right of self defense be taken away.

 

[OpportunityCost]

In which post did you present the evidence for you claim about my statements?

This is why people can't have a decent conversation with you. We have been discussing this for days. If you are going to ignore all our previous conversations in this thread it does seem like you engaging in dishonest behavior.

Your claims on government capabilities per the articles in which firearms are not mentioned is an extremely loose interpretation and your interpretation of individual rights granted per the 2nd is very strict.

If you need further clarification than that maybe you should retire from the thread, they are YOUR arguments after all, if you can't keep your bull**** straight maybe you don't have much of an argument.

Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk

 

[Into the Night]

Court décisions can be reversed as the Court changes. Perhaps you are familiar with Plessey v. Ferguson?

No court has the authority to change the Constitution.

 

[Into the Night]

You are missing the point. And they had no government?

They had no federal government. They governed themselves.

 

[Into the Night]

Others justified the AR15 on the basis that you may be in a situation where you have to fire more than one shot. As I have repeatedly said , there are a vast myriad of normal non semi-automatic rifles which are perfectly capable of doing that. That negates the reason given for an AR15.

Irrational.

 

[OpportunityCost]

What each individual wants to do is not their right unless the government recognizes that behavior as a right.

Without even agreeing with your argument, government has recognized that right.

Government that doesn't isn't legitimate as they are removing a right seen as essential to freedom from coercion.

Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk

 

[Into the Night]

And I agree with that .

Irrational.

1) the right to self defense is from government
1) the right to self defense is a natural right

Which is it, Hay?

 

[haymarket]

This is why people can't have a decent conversation with you. We have been discussing this for days. If you are going to ignore all our previous conversations in this thread it does seem like you engaging in dishonest behavior.

I am doing the opposite of ignoring you. I am asking you what is right and proper in any debate - when you make a claim that I said something and I dispute it - I have the right to ask you to prove it by quoting me. And you fail to do that.

 

[haymarket]

They had no federal government. They governed themselves.

government is government is government.

 

[haymarket]

Irrational.

1) the right to self defense is from government
1) the right to self defense is a natural right

Which is it, Hay?

There is a difference between self defense as an innate ability and self defense as a recognized right in certain situation according to the government you live with.

Do you not understand the difference?

That is a rhetorical question as I already know you don't or you would not pursue this as you do.

 

[Into the Night]

Article I, Section 8, clauses 1,3, 16 & 18.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

None of these clauses give the federal government authority to create a list of guns that do not apply to the 2nd amendment.

 

[haymarket]

Without even agreeing with your argument, government has recognized that right.

Government that doesn't isn't legitimate as they are removing a right seen as essential to freedom from coercion.

Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk

Government has recognized the right to keep and bear arms. In doing that, the law that government passes permits certain weapons and disallows other weapons.