[W:963] The Complete Moderate's Guide to Gun Control

[Wayne Jr]

Semantic exact wording disguised as not having an argument. Are you stating McDonald v Chicago did overturn Cruikshank? Because you seem to be agreeing with him.

I am presently reading the entire McDonald v Chicago ruling, something which it is evident you have never accomplished in your entire life else you would be citing chapter-and-verse with a working link, as proof of KnowingBetter's error. You are silent in regards to actual content, which exposes your ignorance.

 

[OpportunityCost]

I am presently reading the entire McDonald v Chicago ruling, something which it is evident you have never accomplished in your entire life else you would be citing chapter-and-verse with a working link, as proof of KnowingBetter's error. You are silent in regards to actual content, which exposes your ignorance.

You have made a mistake. Don't ****ing insult me. I asked you a polite question.

I asked you first. Now answer or don't I could give a **** after getting a smart assed reply from you.

Last: know your own god damned link.

 

[Wayne Jr]

You have made a mistake. Don't ****ing insult me. I asked you a polite question.

I asked you first. Now answer or don't I could give a **** after getting a smart assed reply from you.

Last: know your own god damned link.

I have watched the video 4 times and never does KnowingBetter state that the RKBA **IS** a right of the militia. The RKBA has always been an individual right and KnowingBetter says so. Please stop your Brady Campaign of misinformation.

 

[CLAX1911]

I am literally going to re-watch the entire video to find this claim, because I don't think he ever, ever says that. If you could please provide the exact time index you are referring to, I would appreciate it.

He goes on about how its form militias and it was there because when the nation was forming there wasn't a federal army.

 

[CLAX1911]

If you are referring to time index 4:53, he uses the past tense, not the present tense. He's talking about what the 2nd WAS back then, not what it IS today.

no he's not, he's talking about what he wants it to have been back then.

Notice that the author even includes a nice "YET" graphic for those, like yourself, who appear to be victims of the public school system.

There's no need to be this way about. He is incorrect In his assessment.

 

[CLAX1911]

Delete

 

[CLAX1911]

I have watched the video 4 times and never does KnowingBetter state that the RKBA **IS** a right of the militia. The RKBA has always been an individual right and KnowingBetter says so. Please stop your Brady Campaign of misinformation.

Why do you degrade into this insulting crap if you do this nobody will want to talk to you.

 

[OpportunityCost]

I have watched the video 4 times and never does KnowingBetter state that the RKBA **IS** a right of the militia. The RKBA has always been an individual right and KnowingBetter says so. Please stop your Brady Campaign of misinformation.

He states it isn't on two separate occasions. You do not know your own link.

 

[CLAX1911]

He states it isn't on two separate occasions. You do not know your own link.

Reading about the Cruikshank decision which I didn't know that much about. It was the first point at which people tried to argue that the Second Amendment did not guarantee an individual right. And this argument was made because the klan that had much bigger numbers in those days didn't want black people owning guns.

So this guy's argument comes out of one of the darkest points in our history where the people were actually trying to deny liberties to rightful citizens.

 

[Wayne Jr]

He goes on about how its form militias and it was there because when the nation was forming there wasn't a federal army.

Right....I still don't see how you think that means "a right of the militia"...it was a right of the people to form militia.

There's no need to be this way about. He is incorrect In his assessment.

I think you're incorrect in your assessment of the video as he clearly is not saying the things you are ascribing to him.

 

[Wayne Jr]

Why do you degrade into this insulting crap if you do this nobody will want to talk to you.

You're outright lying about the video and yet you expect not to be called out? Good luck with that.

 

[CLAX1911]

Right....I still don't see how you think that means "a right of the militia"...it was a right of the people to form militia.

I don't the host of the video does.

I think you're incorrect in your assessment of the video as he clearly is not saying the things you are ascribing to him.

so he's saying nothing?

 

[CLAX1911]

You're outright lying about the video and yet you expect not to be called out? Good luck with that.

That's what he said. Did you watch the video?

 

[Wayne Jr]

That's what he said. Did you watch the video?

What he said and what you think he said are two very different things. The individual right being thought of in context to militia service does not mean it's a militia right. It has always been an individual right. Today we don't think of the RKBA in context to militia serve but in self-defense and home defense. How we think about the right doesn't change the right.

 

[CLAX1911]

What he said and what you think he said are two very different things.

Than there is no point in discussing this further.

 

[TurtleDude]

What he said and what you think he said are two very different things. The individual right being thought of in context to militia service does not mean it's a militia right. It has always been an individual right. Today we don't think of the RKBA in context to militia serve but in self-defense and home defense. How we think about the right doesn't change the right.

well let me ask you a straightforward question:

it is pretty undisputed that the founders did not believe they were CREATING a new right with the second amendment but merely ratifying or guaranteeing a right they all believed was endowed upon man by the creator -meaning that right pre-existed the creation of the new government and the document that did that (The Constitution)

what exactly do you think that pre-existing right was?

 

[Rich2018]

...it is pretty undisputed that the founders did not believe they were CREATING a new right with the second amendment but merely ratifying or guaranteeing a right they all believed was endowed upon man by the creator -meaning that right pre-existed the creation of the new government and the document that did that (The Constitution)

I dispute it

The drafters of the Constitution didn't even put a right to bear arms in it...it had to be added as part of the first 10 amendments.

The 2nd amendment actually gives the purpose for its existence - the right to bear arms is so a "well regulated militia" can be maintianed.


Since we have no need for any militia, there is no need for the 2nd amendment - it is simply a relic from the 18th century.



We are now in the 21st century.

 

[Rucker61]

I dispute it

The drafters of the Constitution didn't even put a right to bear arms in it...it had to be added as part of the first 10 amendments.

The purpose of the Constitution wasn't to list individual rights - it granted powers to the federal government. If the power to regulate the arms of the people wasn't specifically listed as a power, then the Framers had no intent to grant that power to the federal government.

 

[TurtleDude]

I dispute it

The drafters of the Constitution didn't even put a right to bear arms in it...it had to be added as part of the first 10 amendments.

The 2nd amendment actually gives the purpose for its existence - the right to bear arms is so a "well regulated militia" can be maintianed.


Since we have no need for any militia, there is no need for the 2nd amendment - it is simply a relic from the 18th century.



We are now in the 21st century.

nonsensical nonsense. they also didn't give the government any power to regulate arms-its a fiction that FDR had to create 140 years later with the Commerce Clause

 

[TurtleDude]

The purpose of the Constitution wasn't to list individual rights - it granted powers to the federal government. If the power to regulate the arms of the people wasn't specifically listed as a power, then the Framers had no intent to grant that power to the federal government.

bingo-that is the really the definitive word

 

[Bullseye]

I dispute it

The drafters of the Constitution didn't even put a right to bear arms in it...it had to be added as part of the first 10 amendments.

The 2nd amendment actually gives the purpose for its existence - the right to bear arms is so a "well regulated militia" can be maintianed.


Since we have no need for any militia, there is no need for the 2nd amendment - it is simply a relic from the 18th century.



We are now in the 21st century.

Look up Federal Militia Laws, or just read this; you may be a militiaman and not even know it.

 

[Wayne Jr]

well let me ask you a straightforward question:

it is pretty undisputed that the founders did not believe they were CREATING a new right with the second amendment but merely ratifying or guaranteeing a right they all believed was endowed upon man by the creator -meaning that right pre-existed the creation of the new government and the document that did that (The Constitution)

what exactly do you think that pre-existing right was?

That's a social contract subject to human revision, not empirical actual fact. Ultimately there are no rights. Not actually, like gravity which exerts force on you whether you believe in it or not. When it comes to "tHe LaWs Of NaTuRe AnD oF NaTuRe'S GoD" you only get what you are willing to commit acts of violence for. You only have a right to keep and bear arms for as long as you, yourself, "Turtledude", are willing to kill enemies of your "right". Not vote them out of office, but literaly kill. You, "Turtledude", using your own sidearm to put a bullet in their chest cavity and cause their heart to stop and then accepting life in prison.

If you, Turtle, are not actually presently actively murdering heads of state for otherwise "legal" bans, then you have no such right. You have surrendered your right. You are either presently murdering anti-gun name by name and your full legal name is on the FBI most wanted list, or you do not believe in a "natural right to bear arms" given the many infringments that exist today.

That's how "tHe LaWs Of NaTuRe AnD oF NaTuRe'S GoD" works.

 

[Wayne Jr]

I dispute it

The drafters of the Constitution didn't even put a right to bear arms in it...it had to be added as part of the first 10 amendments.

The 2nd amendment actually gives the purpose for its existence - the right to bear arms is so a "well regulated militia" can be maintianed.


Since we have no need for any militia, there is no need for the 2nd amendment - it is simply a relic from the 18th century.



We are now in the 21st century.

Note the sheer absence of well-regulated militias today....

 

[Bum]

I dispute it

The drafters of the Constitution didn't even put a right to bear arms in it...it had to be added as part of the first 10 amendments.

The 2nd amendment actually gives the purpose for its existence - the right to bear arms is so a "well regulated militia" can be maintianed.


Since we have no need for any militia, there is no need for the 2nd amendment - it is simply a relic from the 18th century.



We are now in the 21st century.

And yet The Second Militia Act and Title 10 USC have never been repealed and remain the law of the land...

10 U.S.C.
United States Code, 2011 Edition
Title 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A - General Military Law
PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA
Sec. 311 - Militia: composition and classes
From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, U.S. Government Publishing Office

§311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 14; Pub. L. 85–861, §1(7), Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1439; Pub. L. 103–160, div. A, title V, §524(a), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1656.)



Can you show us any citation that the law has been repealed?

 

[Wayne Jr]

And yet The Second Militia Act and Title 10 USC have never been repealed and remain the law of the land...

10 U.S.C.
United States Code, 2011 Edition
Title 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A - General Military Law
PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA
Sec. 311 - Militia: composition and classes
From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, U.S. Government Publishing Office

§311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 14; Pub. L. 85–861, §1(7), Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1439; Pub. L. 103–160, div. A, title V, §524(a), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1656.)



Can you show us any citation that the law has been repealed?

That law is nothing but a legal tool to facilitate the draft. There is no such "unorganized militia". Indeed there cannot be as any such institution would by default be "organized" by the very definition of the word.

It's like making a theocracy worshiping a non-god. It's illogical.