How Do YOU Define The 2nd Amendment?

Anti-Party

Anti-Party

Tea Is The New Kool-Aid
There are two or more interpretations today, wide scale in America. Please state your interpretation/translation and do not bash others. No one is 100% correct here until they talk to the writers. ^^
 
B) As long as we regulate guns, Americans will be allowed to own without jepardizing safety to other Americans, to ensure future ownership of all guns.
 
Anti-Party said:
There are two or more interpretations today, wide scale in America. Please state your interpretation/translation and do not bash others. No one is 100% correct here until they talk to the writers. ^^
Click to expand...

Maybe more fun than condoms to regulate the American population.
 
Anti-Party said:
...No one is 100% correct here until they talk to the writers. ^^
Click to expand...

Here, the problem is illustrated. We have an entire generation, or maybe two, who actually believe this to be a true statement, that we simply don't understand what the founding fathers intended or meant, and it's really up to us to decide. While deciding, it is perfectly okay to entertain the rhetoric of those who seek to destroy our constitutional freedoms. But those of us who have the intellect to actually study the Federalist Papers, realize the above statement is false, there is a way for us to be 100% correct, without having to talk to the writers, because the writers have talked to us. In fact, this country had a very robust debate over this issue, and our founding fathers penned volumes to explain in detail, what they intended and meant. These writings are sometimes difficult to understand, because they were written in the language of the day, which we struggle with. We start reading it, and quickly find ourselves confused and befuddled, not really comprehending what we're reading, so we just give up and accept what someone tells us they meant. Again, those of us who have the intellect to actually read and understand the material, have a leg up on everyone else, because we know 100% for certain, what the founding fathers were saying and what they meant.

Do you honestly think, the people who ratified the Constitution were not completely certain of the intent and meaning? Was there some great national debate at the time, over what the founding fathers wrote regarding the 2nd Amendment? Did certain people claim they meant one thing, while certain others claimed they meant something completely different? It's doubtful, to me, that we would have ever ratified something of such mystery. I am guessing, most everyone understood what was meant and intended at the time. Before the 2nd, there was certainly an argument over how much power the government should have and how much freedom should be allowed to the people, but this was addressed with the presentation of the 2nd Amendment. The "debate" was settled.

Now, we seem to want to disregard this fact, and pretend that we're still having this debate, and it's simply unclear what the founding fathers intended or meant. We dismiss the Federalist Papers because they are difficult to understand, and then we take the words of the constitution and apply our own comprehensions and understandings, in order to make it say what we want it to say. This results in a sharp contrast between those who do understand the original intent, because they have studied the Federalist Papers and took the time to comprehend the words, and those who simply are lazy and take the word of people who seek to destroy our constitutional freedoms. Amid this bizarre backdrop of people who are intelligent and people who aren't, we have the 'peacemakers' who think "no one is 100% correct unless they talk to the writers."
 
Dixie said:
Here, the problem is illustrated. We have an entire generation, or maybe two, who actually believe this to be a true statement, that we simply don't understand what the founding fathers intended or meant, and it's really up to us to decide. While deciding, it is perfectly okay to entertain the rhetoric of those who seek to destroy our constitutional freedoms. But those of us who have the intellect to actually study the Federalist Papers, realize the above statement is false, there is a way for us to be 100% correct, without having to talk to the writers, because the writers have talked to us. In fact, this country had a very robust debate over this issue, and our founding fathers penned volumes to explain in detail, what they intended and meant. These writings are sometimes difficult to understand, because they were written in the language of the day, which we struggle with. We start reading it, and quickly find ourselves confused and befuddled, not really comprehending what we're reading, so we just give up and accept what someone tells us they meant. Again, those of us who have the intellect to actually read and understand the material, have a leg up on everyone else, because we know 100% for certain, what the founding fathers were saying and what they meant.

Do you honestly think, the people who ratified the Constitution were not completely certain of the intent and meaning? Was there some great national debate at the time, over what the founding fathers wrote regarding the 2nd Amendment? Did certain people claim they meant one thing, while certain others claimed they meant something completely different? It's doubtful, to me, that we would have ever ratified something of such mystery. I am guessing, most everyone understood what was meant and intended at the time. Before the 2nd, there was certainly an argument over how much power the government should have and how much freedom should be allowed to the people, but this was addressed with the presentation of the 2nd Amendment. The "debate" was settled.

Now, we seem to want to disregard this fact, and pretend that we're still having this debate, and it's simply unclear what the founding fathers intended or meant. We dismiss the Federalist Papers because they are difficult to understand, and then we take the words of the constitution and apply our own comprehensions and understandings, in order to make it say what we want it to say. This results in a sharp contrast between those who do understand the original intent, because they have studied the Federalist Papers and took the time to comprehend the words, and those who simply are lazy and take the word of people who seek to destroy our constitutional freedoms. Amid this bizarre backdrop of people who are intelligent and people who aren't, we have the 'peacemakers' who think "no one is 100% correct unless they talk to the writers."
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone could say it any better than this. The Constitution doesn't need interpreting. It says what it says.
 
Dixie said:
Here, the problem is illustrated. We have an entire generation, or maybe two, who actually believe this to be a true statement, that we simply don't understand what the founding fathers intended or meant, and it's really up to us to decide. While deciding, it is perfectly okay to entertain the rhetoric of those who seek to destroy our constitutional freedoms. But those of us who have the intellect to actually study the Federalist Papers, realize the above statement is false, there is a way for us to be 100% correct, without having to talk to the writers, because the writers have talked to us. In fact, this country had a very robust debate over this issue, and our founding fathers penned volumes to explain in detail, what they intended and meant. These writings are sometimes difficult to understand, because they were written in the language of the day, which we struggle with. We start reading it, and quickly find ourselves confused and befuddled, not really comprehending what we're reading, so we just give up and accept what someone tells us they meant. Again, those of us who have the intellect to actually read and understand the material, have a leg up on everyone else, because we know 100% for certain, what the founding fathers were saying and what they meant.

Do you honestly think, the people who ratified the Constitution were not completely certain of the intent and meaning? Was there some great national debate at the time, over what the founding fathers wrote regarding the 2nd Amendment? Did certain people claim they meant one thing, while certain others claimed they meant something completely different? It's doubtful, to me, that we would have ever ratified something of such mystery. I am guessing, most everyone understood what was meant and intended at the time. Before the 2nd, there was certainly an argument over how much power the government should have and how much freedom should be allowed to the people, but this was addressed with the presentation of the 2nd Amendment. The "debate" was settled.

Now, we seem to want to disregard this fact, and pretend that we're still having this debate, and it's simply unclear what the founding fathers intended or meant. We dismiss the Federalist Papers because they are difficult to understand, and then we take the words of the constitution and apply our own comprehensions and understandings, in order to make it say what we want it to say. This results in a sharp contrast between those who do understand the original intent, because they have studied the Federalist Papers and took the time to comprehend the words, and those who simply are lazy and take the word of people who seek to destroy our constitutional freedoms. Amid this bizarre backdrop of people who are intelligent and people who aren't, we have the 'peacemakers' who think "no one is 100% correct unless they talk to the writers."
Click to expand...

You know, I never read your posts because you fail fast within a sentence or two. You should research more.

Saul Cornell wrote an entire book that didn't sound as ignorant as that.
 
Obama Hates America said:
I don't think anyone could say it any better than this. The Constitution doesn't need interpreting. It says what it says.
Click to expand...

You said it right, it says what it says. Yet the only way it makes sense is if it says to regulate gun ownership. You can look in to multiple definitions of 3 words in the 2nd Amendment but the in every definition it says to regulate gun ownership. Libertardians choose to believe it is the one that says military AND civilians must be regulated equally. No where in there does it say equally or anything about equally. So pathetic. Brainwashed sheep.
 
Dixie said:
Here, the problem is illustrated. We have an entire generation, or maybe two, who actually believe this to be a true statement, that we simply don't understand what the founding fathers intended or meant, and it's really up to us to decide. While deciding, it is perfectly okay to entertain the rhetoric of those who seek to destroy our constitutional freedoms. But those of us who have the intellect to actually study the Federalist Papers, realize the above statement is false, there is a way for us to be 100% correct, without having to talk to the writers, because the writers have talked to us. In fact, this country had a very robust debate over this issue, and our founding fathers penned volumes to explain in detail, what they intended and meant. These writings are sometimes difficult to understand, because they were written in the language of the day, which we struggle with. We start reading it, and quickly find ourselves confused and befuddled, not really comprehending what we're reading, so we just give up and accept what someone tells us they meant. Again, those of us who have the intellect to actually read and understand the material, have a leg up on everyone else, because we know 100% for certain, what the founding fathers were saying and what they meant.

Do you honestly think, the people who ratified the Constitution were not completely certain of the intent and meaning? Was there some great national debate at the time, over what the founding fathers wrote regarding the 2nd Amendment? Did certain people claim they meant one thing, while certain others claimed they meant something completely different? It's doubtful, to me, that we would have ever ratified something of such mystery. I am guessing, most everyone understood what was meant and intended at the time. Before the 2nd, there was certainly an argument over how much power the government should have and how much freedom should be allowed to the people, but this was addressed with the presentation of the 2nd Amendment. The "debate" was settled.

Now, we seem to want to disregard this fact, and pretend that we're still having this debate, and it's simply unclear what the founding fathers intended or meant. We dismiss the Federalist Papers because they are difficult to understand, and then we take the words of the constitution and apply our own comprehensions and understandings, in order to make it say what we want it to say. This results in a sharp contrast between those who do understand the original intent, because they have studied the Federalist Papers and took the time to comprehend the words, and those who simply are lazy and take the word of people who seek to destroy our constitutional freedoms. Amid this bizarre backdrop of people who are intelligent and people who aren't, we have the 'peacemakers' who think "no one is 100% correct unless they talk to the writers."
Click to expand...

Someone liked your trash post, so lets pick a few things apart. Because after reading it, you solidified my translation 100%.

"These writings are sometimes difficult to understand, because they were written in the language of the day, which we struggle with. We start reading it, and quickly find ourselves confused and befuddled, not really comprehending what we're reading, so we just give up and accept what someone tells us they meant." Well that should have been your red flag before your cult leader looked in your eye and told you that he KNOWS what they ment.

The president of the time of the 2nd Amendment was a Federalist. He jailed people for not paying taxes on alchohol. He was living in a barbaric era. You don't have to look past the barbaric Countries today to understand the uncontrolled barbaric past.

You talked about the discussion of "how much power people should have" vs. government. Which solidifies my point. Military, just like Presidential security, have different opponents than you and I. If you can't see the difference between securing a home and securing a country, or recently, securing a presidents children vs securing an average citizens children, you are simply uneducated.

The discussion WAS, "should the citizens be allowed to own tools that can kill so easy". So they put in place the 2nd Amendment that promised future Americans we would be allowed to have these tools, as long as they are well regulated, as long as we live in a free state.

It doesn't mean all citizens should be allowed to drive tanks with no background check at all, the Libertardian translation.

You are in a cult my friend. I advise you to go talk to a 7th day adventist. When you see how sure they are everyone on earth is going to hell except them, notice their tv stations, notice they have created their own society.....then you might notice the Libertarian cult.
 
Anti-Party said:
You said it right, it says what it says. Yet the only way it makes sense is if it says to regulate gun ownership. You can look in to multiple definitions of 3 words in the 2nd Amendment but the in every definition it says to regulate gun ownership. Libertardians choose to believe it is the one that says military AND civilians must be regulated equally. No where in there does it say equally or anything about equally. So pathetic. Brainwashed sheep.
Click to expand...

We can explain it to you 1000 times an either you are too stubborn or too stupid to understand. Which is it?

The word regulate does not mean what you think it means. In the context of how it was used in the 2nd Amendment it means "well equipped". Which makes perfect sense given what the Founders had just been through with the fuckstick Brits.

Now using libtardiot logic like yours, the gobblement should buy us all guns.

Your life would be much easier if you didn't walk around being a complete dumb fuck
 
Anti-Party said:
You said it right, it says what it says. Yet the only way it makes sense is if it says to regulate gun ownership. You can look in to multiple definitions of 3 words in the 2nd Amendment but the in every definition it says to regulate gun ownership. Libertardians choose to believe it is the one that says military AND civilians must be regulated equally. No where in there does it say equally or anything about equally. So pathetic. Brainwashed sheep.
Click to expand...

Does it not say 'a well regulated militia'?
The arseholes who want to be little John Waynes pride themselves on taking no notice of regulation. Waah it gosh darn comminizum! No one's gonna tek mah gurn away.
 
Lowaicue said:
Does it not say 'a well regulated militia'?
The arseholes who want to be little John Waynes pride themselves on taking no notice of regulation. Waah it gosh darn comminizum! No one's gonna tek mah gurn away.
Click to expand...

You can try and take it. You personally. You nancy pants libtards talk tough about taking them but hide behind your skirts.
 
Obama Hates America said:
You can try and take it. You personally. You nancy pants libtards talk tough about taking them but hide behind your skirts.
Click to expand...

Why on earth would I want a gun? I have never even handled one, apart from at a fairground as a child.. I have nothing to protect myself from and no one has ever attacked me or any member of my family. You live a sad, sad life. Hey ho... you'll never understand civilised existence.
 
Anti-Party said:
Someone liked your trash post, so lets pick a few things apart. Because after reading it, you solidified my translation 100%.

"These writings are sometimes difficult to understand, because they were written in the language of the day, which we struggle with. We start reading it, and quickly find ourselves confused and befuddled, not really comprehending what we're reading, so we just give up and accept what someone tells us they meant." Well that should have been your red flag before your cult leader looked in your eye and told you that he KNOWS what they ment.

The president of the time of the 2nd Amendment was a Federalist. He jailed people for not paying taxes on alchohol. He was living in a barbaric era. You don't have to look past the barbaric Countries today to understand the uncontrolled barbaric past.

You talked about the discussion of "how much power people should have" vs. government. Which solidifies my point. Military, just like Presidential security, have different opponents than you and I. If you can't see the difference between securing a home and securing a country, or recently, securing a presidents children vs securing an average citizens children, you are simply uneducated.

The discussion WAS, "should the citizens be allowed to own tools that can kill so easy". So they put in place the 2nd Amendment that promised future Americans we would be allowed to have these tools, as long as they are well regulated, as long as we live in a free state.

It doesn't mean all citizens should be allowed to drive tanks with no background check at all, the Libertardian translation.

You are in a cult my friend. I advise you to go talk to a 7th day adventist. When you see how sure they are everyone on earth is going to hell except them, notice their tv stations, notice they have created their own society.....then you might notice the Libertarian cult.
Click to expand...

My fave line from the op was "don't bash others"!

I wondered then how soon before some intolerant liberal would ignore that request!!

Funny that you who made the request, were the first to ignore it!!!
 
Lowaicue said:
Why on earth would I want a gun? I have never even handled one, apart from at a fairground as a child.. I have nothing to protect myself from and no one has ever attacked me or any member of my family. You live a sad, sad life. Hey ho... you'll never understand civilised existence.
Click to expand...
America is the most civilized nation on earth.
I know, I've seen much of the world( havnt been to NZ or Australia yet) and compared to the USA, it all sucks.
 
007 said:
America is the most civilized nation on earth.
I know, I've seen much of the world( havnt been to NZ or Australia yet) and compared to the USA, it all sucks.
Click to expand...

If you measure civilisation by killings of innocent foreigners, by invasions of sovereign states, by child mortality, by education standards, by arrogance and ignorance why, yes, the US is civilised.
Have you ever read a newspaper?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top