What weapons does the 2nd protect?

[Bodi]

yeah
its the sport shooters that will not rise up to the national defense
its the gang members and Illegal aliens that will do it
surely not the law abiding americans :roll:

It's a joke cowboy.

you really need to 86 the basement warden title
you have not, nor never will deserve it

It's a joke as well. But thanks for expressing your irrelevant piss-ant opinion about it. :lol:

 

[Bodi]

The FF clearly believed that keeping and bearing arms was an inalienable right

you cannot find a single document or letter contemporaneous to that era which says otherwise

Show me one post where I ever expressed that I believed it was not an inalienable right and that there were documents expressing this idea?

Run along, you have nothing. You don't even understand the freaking argument anyway, AS CLEARLY expressed by your infantile characterization of my position. :lol:

 

[Bodi]

OUCH:mrgreen:

I know... it hurts reading his stupid assessments, doesn't it. :rofl

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Your position is very easy to understand.

Where on earth did you get 20% from? Is that from Jefferson? Madison?

See, I sit her and read the 2nd and see NOTHING about percentages, and then I listen to you guys tell me that I am reading things that aren't there... :lol:

so how would you muster a "well regulated militia" from a disarmed populace.....



And I got the 20% by taking the active participants in the revolutionary war and about doubling it.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Honestly, I could careless what the Original intent was, I can only concern myself to what it actually is and as of now. It a right of the people. There for in my oppionion i can own whatever the hell i want, and from what they are saying in the articule i posted it is possible to see many of the restriction already in place to be overturned.

this is what bhodi i think fails to understand. the 10 amendments restrict government not people and there is no need for a 2nd for me to be "allowed" by another man to own the weapons he supplies his own tribe.....



inalienable and natural rights....

 

[Bodi]

so how would you muster a "well regulated militia" from a disarmed populace.....

the population IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE DISARMED.
The population has the ****ING RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS.
What is it with you guys?
Are you purposely being thick and obtuse? :roll:

And I got the 20% by taking the active participants in the revolutionary war and about doubling it.

So you can just come up with arbitrary stuff, but when I come to conclusions they are just sooooo far off. :roll:

There has been "zero" debate from the three of you, just ridiculous ad homs and leaps of intepretation that rest on the fallible court instead of the FF themselves.

 

[DivineComedy]

Just to clarify, where it says:

"No firearms at all Bodhisattva, earthworm, Jijala 4 6.45%"

I am one of those. Hit the button while not logged in.

 

[DeeJayH]

Are you purposely being thick and obtuse? :roll:

I plead plastered on an empty stomach

 

[Bodi]

I plead plastered on an empty stomach

That happens to the best of us... and it has happened to people like me too.

 

[Bodi]

I am not surprised that gun-freaks have given up trying to defend their illogical and emotionally driven arguments.
I employed the classic Miagi-Do attack... when used properly, No Can Defend. :2wave:

 

[Iriemon]

Originally Posted by Iriemon
Realizing I'm opening a can of worms, I'm not sure it is clear that there was a consensus view that the 2dA was designed to provide for the capability of an insurgency against the government, and I seem to recall reading things to the contrary. The language in the 2A speaks about the militia being necessary to the security of a free state, which most logically is read that the militia is necessary for the defense of the nation. You could read it to mean that the militia is necessary to keep the people free from Govt tyrrany (though the language speaks of free state, not free people). Some viewed the militia as being necessary to maintain order in the nation, such as when Washington called out the militia to put down an insurgency (the Whiskey rebellion) not fight for it.

Originally Posted by Noah Webster
Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that exists among the people, or which they can command; for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.

Just thoughts.

I don't deny there were some who held the view quoted; but there were others (Federalists) who feared a mob; which is why I said "consensus".

This contingency was addressed by the reference to a "well regulated" militia.

 

[Iriemon]

“Right of the People.” The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.” The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment ’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment ’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.

This contention is undermined by the argument that "the people" as applied to the 2d doesn't apply to convicts or loons.

Even convicts and loons have the right to assemble and be free from unreasonable searches. But even pro-gun advocates don't suggest they have the right to own a gun. Thus "the people" apparently means different things.

 

[Iriemon]

so how would you muster a "well regulated militia" from a disarmed populace.....

Maintain the guns at the local militia depot would be one possibility.

How would you must a "well regulated militia" from an untrained, unorganized and disciplined bunch of people? A bunch of untrained, unorganized and undisciplined people with guns is not a well regulated militia, but an armed mob.

 

[rivrrat]

I am not surprised that gun-freaks have given up trying to defend their illogical and emotionally driven arguments.
I employed the classic Miagi-Do attack... when used properly, No Can Defend. :2wave:

Yeah whatever. Right now I'm signing up for a firearms class in preparation for the gun I'll be purchasing (or that my BF will purchase for me). After that class I'll take another. And THEN I'm going to take a shotgun class because I just think that'll be WTF fun.

Oh, and all I need to do to "defend my right" to own and use guns is buy a gun, license it, educate myself on it, and then wait for someone to come, survive the shootout and then pry it from my cold, dead hand. How's that for illogical and emotionally driven?

 

[Bodi]

Yeah whatever. Right now I'm signing up for a firearms class in preparation for the gun I'll be purchasing (or that my BF will purchase for me). After that class I'll take another. And THEN I'm going to take a shotgun class because I just think that'll be WTF fun.

Oh, and all I need to do to "defend my right" to own and use guns is buy a gun, license it, educate myself on it, and then wait for someone to come, survive the shootout and then pry it from my cold, dead hand. How's that for illogical and emotionally driven?

I'm all for it.
When I fired weapons I loved it.
Unfortunately though, your desire to own a gun and take classes has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendments intent.
:2wave:

 

[rivrrat]

I'm all for it.
When I fired weapons I loved it.
Unfortunately though, your desire to own a gun and take classes has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendments intent.
:2wave:

My desire to has nothing to do with the amendment. What DOES have to do with the amendment is that I legally *can*.

 

[Bodi]

My desire to has nothing to do with the amendment. What DOES have to do with the amendment is that I legally *can*.

The legality of "being ABLE to own a gun", for the purpose you are describing, has nothing to do with the 2nd either...
The Court has misinterpreted the 2nd's meaning and "the people" are all too willing to go along with it for selfish reasons, simple as that.

 

[rivrrat]

The legality of "being ABLE to own a gun", for the purpose you are describing, has nothing to do with the 2nd either...
The Court has misinterpreted the 2nd's meaning and "the people" are all too willing to go along with it for selfish reasons, simple as that.

LMAO Whatever.

I'm glad that most of the citizens of this country, and every supreme court since the Bill of Rights was written, know better than you do. At least they're smart enough to know that "the people" means the same every time it's referenced, instead of some notion that it means "individuals" in one amendment, and "some organized group" in another.

Even the information YOU posted yourself, the things YOU quoted regarding the FF disagreed with you. I know you posted it in an effort to make YOUR point, but you actually proved your point wrong with their own words.

And what other reasons besides 'selfish' ones would there be?

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

LMAO Whatever.

I'm glad that most of the citizens of this country, and every supreme court since the Bill of Rights was written, know better than you do. At least they're smart enough to know that "the people" means the same every time it's referenced, instead of some notion that it means "individuals" in one amendment, and "some organized group" in another.

Even the information YOU posted yourself, the things YOU quoted regarding the FF disagreed with you. I know you posted it in an effort to make YOUR point, but you actually proved your point wrong with their own words.

And what other reasons besides 'selfish' ones would there be?

Also what he fails to understand is that the 10 amendments restrict government and not the people. It does not grant rights it recognizes rights retained by the people.

 

[Bodi]

LMAO Whatever.

OKay

What-EVA right back at ya. :rofl

I'm glad that most of the citizens of this country, and every supreme court since the Bill of Rights was written, know better than you do.

Oh, I see... your one of those "sheeple" that allows others to think for them. :lol:

At least they're smart enough to know that "the people" means the same every time it's referenced, instead of some notion that it means "individuals" in one amendment, and "some organized group" in another.

The people always means the people.
The people IS a group.
It is the people.
Is that really hard to understand?

Even the information YOU posted yourself, the things YOU quoted regarding the FF disagreed with you. I know you posted it in an effort to make YOUR point, but you actually proved your point wrong with their own words.

Incorrect. Interpretation, it is all about intepreting INTENT.

And what other reasons besides 'selfish' ones would there be?

Defending our rights from oppression.


It was really nice talking with you. :2wave:

 

[Bodi]

Also what he fails to understand is that the 10 amendments restrict government and not the people. It does not grant rights it recognizes rights retained by the people.

Explain how I fail to understand that which is so obvious please. Thanks.

Look, I am sorry that you guys are having trouble negotiating this simple step, but to keep mis-labeling what I am saying indicates that you are mis-interpreting what I am saying, thus displaying the logical step as to how you are also mis-interpreting the 2nd.

Also, I have not forgotten how you have not addressed the information that I have provided. Rivrat completely misunderstands it. I expect zero honesty from Turtle and Goobie, but Rev. I expected more out of you. Disappointing.

 

[TurtleDude]

The legality of "being ABLE to own a gun", for the purpose you are describing, has nothing to do with the 2nd either...
The Court has misinterpreted the 2nd's meaning and "the people" are all too willing to go along with it for selfish reasons, simple as that.

You are wrong as usual. HE has the right to do that unless you can prove that the federal government was given the power to regulate it. You cannot and it is fun seeing someone who clearly has no schooling in American Constitutional law having the arrogance to say he knows more than Chief Justice Roberts and AJ Scalia-two men who each graduated first in their Harvard Law Class

 

[TurtleDude]

Explain how I fail to understand that which is so obvious please. Thanks.

Look, I am sorry that you guys are having trouble negotiating this simple step, but to keep mis-labeling what I am saying indicates that you are mis-interpreting what I am saying, thus displaying the logical step as to how you are also mis-interpreting the 2nd.

Also, I have not forgotten how you have not addressed the information that I have provided. Rivrat completely misunderstands it. I expect zero honesty from Turtle and Goobie, but Rev. I expected more out of you. Disappointing.

You calling anyone dishonest is a riot. I and the rest of the pro gun posters are honest about our positions. You engage in cowardly sophistry and ignore the obvious and mine the unfathonable for support

 

[TurtleDude]

Also what he fails to understand is that the 10 amendments restrict government and not the people. It does not grant rights it recognizes rights retained by the people.

He makes stuff up and he ignores the obvious when it conflicts with his "rope a dope" defensive evasions

 

[Bodi]

You calling anyone dishonest is a riot. I and the rest of the pro gun posters are honest about our positions. You engage in cowardly sophistry and ignore the obvious and mine the unfathonable for support

Oh? I am not being honest about my position? Prove it.

The only coward between us is you buddy boy. We disagree and you act like a 2nd grade sissy about it. Pathetic. :lol:

Hide behind the opinions of others all you like. The Court was wrong on Plessy... scary wrong, and I am sure that you are some racist dork that would have supported them then over that too. "But the court is right and how could you, Bodi, have the arrogance to think that their decision on Plessy is wrong, you silly contrarian." Waa waa, I can just see you now.

The court is fallible and just because they have not changed their stance does not mean that they are correct. 1st in their class? Wow. That is the great thing about having minds of our own... perhaps you should exercise yours a bit and do some thinking of your own instead of doing the goose-step to what others have thought of.

To date, none of you have addressed the information that I presented. You ignored it like the intellectual giant that you are. Disagree all you like, the reason that this is a debate, and that there is an issue, is that others disagree with how the court inteprets the Constitution. :lol:

Until you step up and address the information, I will ignore you too. You are fast becoming a waste of time with your silly opinions and you are certainly no longer any fun to make fun of.

This entire post was too much time spent. argh.

:2wave: