Epic Fail: Obama's "EOs" on gun control

Lowaicue said:
It would be the words 'a well regulated militia.' (apologies if I have misquoted)
Click to expand...

The text: 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.

It is inane to pretend that the reason that we have the right limits the right. One must pretend that "the people" in the actual right means something different than in every other part of the Constitution including the Amendments written at the same time.

Basically it states that because we may be invaded, citizens can keep and bear arms. If you pretend that the first part is in some way limiting to the second part then you aren't using all your brain cells and are desperate for some view of a plainly written personal right that limits the capability of "the people" (individuals) to keep and bear arms.
 
Damocles said:
The text: 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.

It is inane to pretend that the reason that we have the right limits the right. One must pretend that "the people" in the actual right means something different than in every other part of the Constitution including the Amendments written at the same time.

Basically it states that because we may be invaded, citizens can keep and bear arms. If you pretend that the first part is in some way limiting to the second part then you aren't using all your brain cells and are desperate for some view of a plainly written personal right that limits the capability of "the people" (individuals) to keep and bear arms.
Click to expand...

After throwing off the cloak of what was the most oppressive country, at that time, it would seem logically that they would want the citizens of this new country to be able to individually fight back, in case any one ever tried to bring back that cloak.
 
Sorry cant quote as there is no scroll function for your site on hand held devices, but you have given a perfect example of how to cherry pick. The second part of the sentence is dependant upon the first. It works within the framework of 'a well regulated militia'.
Now if you read it with that in mind you will, I hope, see how you have erred.
 
“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.”

That reads like a conditional statement. If we as a fledgling new nation are committed to our own security, then it’s best we have a regulated militia. And to maintain this defensive militia, we must allow Americans to keep and bear arms.

The other defensive option would have been a standing army.

But at the time, our Founding Fathers believed a militia was the one best defense for the nation since a standing army was, to quote Jefferson, “an engine of oppression.”

Our Founding Fathers were scared senseless of standing armies. It was well-accepted among the Members of Congress during that first gun debate that “standing armies in a time of peace are dangerous to liberty.” Those were the exact words used in the state of New York’s amendment to the gun debate.

Later, in an 1814 letter to Thomas Cooper, Jefferson wrote of standing armies: “The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so.”

Had the early framers of the Constitution embraced a standing army during times of peace, then there would be no need for a regulated militia, and thus no need for the 2nd Amendment.

Instead, they openly opposed a standing army during times of peace. Want proof? In the entire Constitution, there are no time limits on the power of Congress to raise money and pay for anything – except an Army. We can have a Navy forever. We can have roads or bridges or post offices or pretty much anything else that supports the "general welfare" without limit and in perpetuity. But an Army? That had to be re-evaluated every two years, when all spending for the past two years of army was zeroed out. It's right there in Article 1, Section 8, line twelve reads that Congress has the power: "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years."


The United States Constitution:

Article I - Section 8

Clause 12:

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

Clause 15:

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Clause 16:

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;

ref. ref.
 
Bfgrn said:
But herein lies your problem Dixie Lou. The 2nd amendment was in place the whole time.
Click to expand...

Yes it was. What is your point? You said it was absurd to think the sons and daughters serving our military would ever turn their guns on we the people, but they HAVE done this, even WITH the 2nd Amendment in place! More recently, they've also turned their guns on we the people at Ruby Ridge and Waco. To foolishly insist this is an absurd notion, that can't and won't ever happen, is completely ignorant of historical fact. It has happened numerous times, even WITH a 2nd Amendment!
 
Lowaicue said:
I have absolutely no idea of his religious leanings. Why the hell should I? He's a twat and as far as I know there are jewish, gentile, islamist, confucian, taoist and hindu twats.

You've been in the states too long, owd son. Liberal is not a negative it is very much a word of which to be proud. I would rather side with David Lloyd George even though he is long dead than an idiot like bush or the last pretender, jeeze nearly forgotten him already... Romney.
Click to expand...

Lloyd George was a liberal in the British liberal party.
The work liberal in the USA has a different meaning altogether.
A liberal is a pre socialist.
Obama is a pre Socislist.
Foreigners should keep their Filthy noses out of us domestic policy.

It dosn't concern you, dosn't impact you in any way !
 
007 said:
Lloyd George was a liberal in the British liberal party.
The work liberal in the USA has a different meaning altogether.
A liberal is a pre socialist.
Obama is a pre Socislist.
Foreigners should keep their Filthy noses out of us domestic policy.

It dosn't concern you, dosn't impact you in any way !
Click to expand...
You are a foreigner
 
Dixie said:
Yes it was. What is your point? You said it was absurd to think the sons and daughters serving our military would ever turn their guns on we the people, but they HAVE done this, even WITH the 2nd Amendment in place! More recently, they've also turned their guns on we the people at Ruby Ridge and Waco. To foolishly insist this is an absurd notion, that can't and won't ever happen, is completely ignorant of historical fact. It has happened numerous times, even WITH a 2nd Amendment!
Click to expand...

Epic fail Dixie Lou. These were tragic isolated incidents, but they were no part of a conspiracy or a despotic act by any elected representative of government.

I have a very high amount skepticism bordering on cynicism about agencies like the FBI, the ATF and the CIA. But I have those same reservations about our local police force.

But more often than not, when I have a discussion with conservatives about the abuse of power by law enforcement like profiling and stopping kids on phony traffic violations etc, conservatives defend these agencies and police in general.

It is a straw man Dixie Lou.
 
007 said:
Lloyd George was a liberal in the British liberal party.
The work liberal in the USA has a different meaning altogether.
A liberal is a pre socialist.
Obama is a pre Socislist.
Foreigners should keep their Filthy noses out of us domestic policy.

It dosn't concern you, dosn't impact you in any way !
Click to expand...

Of course it impacts me. despite the wishes of the brain dead, the US is a global player and the politics of most nations concerns us all. Liberal means precisely what Lloyd George meant by it. Only America has attempted to change its meaning, in the same way they want to change everything so it suits them. They changed football so their world championship could always be won by them. They changed netball and rounders so they could always win... the fact that there are no competitors seems to have escaped them. So my dear friend, perhaps I may call you Enoch? or would you prefer Oswald? please do not tell me about my language nor about my culture which, despite living overseas, I jealously guard and unlike you, I suspect, I still have my passport, house, bank account, family and intention to end my days in England.
Obama is NOT a socialist pre or post he is a slightly to the left capitalist and is probably the best thing your adopted home has had in a dozen years. He has, in four years, made huge changes in the way the US is viewed by the world and this is being/will be reflected in your international trade.
So, be a yank by all means because being an arsehole goes with the territory so you are more than half way there. Those Americans who believe in modernity and America's place in the world as a partner and not a swaggering twat will, despite you, steer the US to success.
 
Bfoon said:
Epic fail Dixie. These were tragic isolated incidents, but they were no part of a conspiracy or a despotic act by any elected representative of government.

I have a very high amount skepticism bordering on cynicism about agencies like the FBI, the ATF and the CIA. But I have those same reservations about our local police force.

But more often than not, when I have a discussion with conservatives about the abuse of power by law enforcement like profiling and stopping kids on phony traffic violations etc, conservatives defend these agencies and police in general.

It is a straw man Dixie.
Click to expand...

Uh... the execution of nearly 30 million indigenous people of America throughout the 18th and 19th century, was NOT an isolated incident. I can list numerous outright massacres which did take place, which were ordered by the US Government, on people who had more right to be here than you, or anyone else. YOU made the absurd argument that "our sons and daughters would never turn their guns on the people at the behest of the military or government." THEY HAVE! IT'S HISTORY! Now, you want to uproot the goal posts and claim "isolated incidents" and pretend we're talking about something else.

We have the right to bear arms, and we have a valid and legitimate reason for this right. We have accounts in history around the globe, of tyrannic government disarming the people and then executing them, and we have that same example in this very country. To foolishly pretend our government is above this, or it could never happen, is ignorant of history. We will KEEP our right to bear arms, and you can go fuck yourself.
 
Bfgrn said:
“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.”

That reads like a conditional statement. If we as a fledgling new nation are committed to our own security, then it’s best we have a regulated militia. And to maintain this defensive militia, we must allow Americans to keep and bear arms.

The other defensive option would have been a standing army.

But at the time, our Founding Fathers believed a militia was the one best defense for the nation since a standing army was, to quote Jefferson, “an engine of oppression.”

Our Founding Fathers were scared senseless of standing armies. It was well-accepted among the Members of Congress during that first gun debate that “standing armies in a time of peace are dangerous to liberty.” Those were the exact words used in the state of New York’s amendment to the gun debate.

Later, in an 1814 letter to Thomas Cooper, Jefferson wrote of standing armies: “The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so.”

Had the early framers of the Constitution embraced a standing army during times of peace, then there would be no need for a regulated militia, and thus no need for the 2nd Amendment.

Instead, they openly opposed a standing army during times of peace. Want proof? In the entire Constitution, there are no time limits on the power of Congress to raise money and pay for anything – except an Army. We can have a Navy forever. We can have roads or bridges or post offices or pretty much anything else that supports the "general welfare" without limit and in perpetuity. But an Army? That had to be re-evaluated every two years, when all spending for the past two years of army was zeroed out. It's right there in Article 1, Section 8, line twelve reads that Congress has the power: "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years."


The United States Constitution:

Article I - Section 8

Clause 12:

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

Clause 15:

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Clause 16:

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;

ref. ref.
Click to expand...

But it wasn't written to protect the United States. It was written to protect individual states. Remember, at the founding the federal government wasn't designed to rule over all of the states. The states were considered autonomous entities and the federal government was supposed to keep them from descending into wars with each other.

The 2nd Amendment was written to protect each state from the federal government.

When you read the Constitution with the framers true intent in mind which was to limit the power of the federal government then the Constitution makes perfect sense.

It is only to those who are big government Statists that the Constitution is confusing
 
Obama Hates America said:
But it wasn't written to protect the United States. It was written to protect individual states. Remember, at the founding the federal government wasn't designed to rule over all of the states. The states were considered autonomous entities and the federal government was supposed to keep them from descending into wars with each other.

The 2nd Amendment was written to protect each state from the federal government.

When you read the Constitution with the framers true intent in mind which was to limit the power of the federal government then the Constitution makes perfect sense.

It is only to those who are big government Statists that the Constitution is confusing
Click to expand...

Do you have a reading problem, or a comprehension problem?

What part of:

Clause 15:

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Clause 16:

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;

don't you understand???
 
Dixie said:
Uh... the execution of nearly 30 million indigenous people of America throughout the 18th and 19th century, was NOT an isolated incident. I can list numerous outright massacres which did take place, which were ordered by the US Government, on people who had more right to be here than you, or anyone else. YOU made the absurd argument that "our sons and daughters would never turn their guns on the people at the behest of the military or government." THEY HAVE! IT'S HISTORY! Now, you want to uproot the goal posts and claim "isolated incidents" and pretend we're talking about something else.

We have the right to bear arms, and we have a valid and legitimate reason for this right. We have accounts in history around the globe, of tyrannic government disarming the people and then executing them, and we have that same example in this very country. To foolishly pretend our government is above this, or it could never happen, is ignorant of history. We will KEEP our right to bear arms, and you can go fuck yourself.
Click to expand...

Stuff your right wing bullshit Dixie Lou. The slaughter of the American Indians was not a 2nd amendment issue, it was a racial issue and a property grab issue.

Ruby Ridge and Waco were tragic isolated incidents. The irony of Ruby Ridge, if Sammy Weaver and Kevin Harris had been unarmed, the only death that probably would have occurred is the Weaver dog.
 
Lowaicue said:
Sorry cant quote as there is no scroll function for your site on hand held devices, but you have given a perfect example of how to cherry pick. The second part of the sentence is dependant upon the first. It works within the framework of 'a well regulated militia'.
Now if you read it with that in mind you will, I hope, see how you have erred.
Click to expand...

Incorrect, the first part is the reason, the second part is the solution.

Again, in more modern English one would say something like this: "As we may be invaded and therefore need militias to defend ourselves, the right of the Citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be taken."

It isn't conditional, only the most simplistic thinkers refuse to pay attention to the meaning of "the people" throughout the document and therefore attempt to come up with a reason why it is different here than in the rest of the document. "But they sad well regulated militia!" you say... Again, it is a simple problem/solution sentence. The problem, the need for a militia, the solution, "the people" will be allowed to have weapons.
 
Bfoon said:
Stuff your right wing bullshit Dixie Lou. The slaughter of the American Indians was not a 2nd amendment issue, it was a racial issue and a property grab issue.

Ruby Ridge and Waco were tragic isolated incidents. The irony of Ruby Ridge, if Sammy Weaver and Kevin Harris had been unarmed, the only death that probably would have occurred is the Weaver dog.
Click to expand...

I didn't argue that the government extermination of indigenous people was a 2nd Amendment issue, I argued it was a government turning guns on the people issue, and it was. They took their weapons before executing them, just as you want to take our weapons now. They told them not to be silly, they would never cause harm, and only had their best interests at heart, then they killed the unarmed men, women and children in cold blood. It's highly offensive to me, that you will ignore this tragic and horrific chapter in our history, while you parade around claiming people are being silly about the threat of government turning the military against it's people. My people, the ones who weren't outright executed and murdered, were taken from their homes, marched 2,500 miles across prairies and desert to be put in what amounted to concentration camps, by order of the United States Government.

Now you go ahead and do your little tap dance and pretend we're having some different argument, and you are really showing me. Go ahead and hurl a few base insults at me as well, your friends like doing that whenever they have been pwned, it seems to help them cope. But what you're not going to do, is lie about the fact that governments DO turn their guns on the people when they can't defend themselves, even our own government has done it, and will do it again if we allow it.
 
Damocles said:
Incorrect, the first part is the reason, the second part is the solution.

Again, in more modern English one would say something like this: "As we may be invaded and therefore need militias to defend ourselves, the right of the Citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be taken."

It isn't conditional, only the most simplistic thinkers refuse to pay attention to the meaning of "the people" throughout the document and therefore attempt to come up with a reason why it is different here than in the rest of the document. "But they sad well regulated militia!" you say... Again, it is a simple problem/solution sentence. The problem, the need for a militia, the solution, "the people" will be allowed to have weapons.
Click to expand...

I will not argue further, I am going to bed. Suffice it to say that by the norms of the English language you are mistaken.
Try to be objective about the structure of the sentence. It is not 'conditional' in a grammatical sense (0,1,2 or 3) but the second clause is a condition of the first and they were written as a single thought not two, otherwise they would form two seperate sentences.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top