How Do YOU Define The 2nd Amendment?

007 said:
Ok that's why the comma was inserted.
Click to expand...

A comma does not end a sentence and start another or end a subject and start another......It's all one subject.

You do realize there is a reason Blue states are also ranked the smartest states and the Red states are ranked the dumbest states. No offense. I'm a Conservative voter but notice the Right Wing is out of their mind listening to Libertardians like Grover Norquist and voting in Corporate Giants like Bush/Romney.
 
Anti-Party said:
A comma does not end a sentence and start another or end a subject and start another......It's all one subject.

You do realize there is a reason Blue states are also ranked the smartest states and the Red states are ranked the dumbest states. No offense. I'm a Conservative voter but notice the Right Wing is out of their mind listening to Libertardians like Grover Norquist and voting in Corporate Giants like Bush/Romney.
Click to expand...


The blue states, I believe, are in the north and east. The red states are what you call 'cattle states'. Cattle men traditionally need to protect their herds and themselves whereas the blue states traditionally have been farming states where populations are more stable. Stable population breeds reliance upon the 'society', the development of urban living, the necessity to have and support the laws that make such a lifestyle possible.
So you in the red states you get this weird correlation of guns, god and gop. All vital to the survival of the traditionally poorly educated cattleman. The problem is that urbanisation spreads and the cattlemen feel a need to fight the civilisation it brings because a cattleman must be macho and fight.
That's OK until they start to think of themselves as equal or better than the urbanites, which of course they will never be.
 
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...

And yet, you have proudly stated that you live in a "gated community" to keep out the undesirables.
 
I Love America said:
Interesting you substituted the word provide for the word promote in the Preamble. I am sure even a dumb ass such as yourself would know they mean different things. Was it an oversight or were you deliberately trying to deceive?
Click to expand...

The Kanadian does it all the time. He truly believes that "promote" means "provide".
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
The Kanadian does it all the time. He truly believes that "promote" means "provide".
Click to expand...

I like where this is going. It shines light on my perspective.

To you "promote" does not mean "provide". But to you "Regulated" means "well equipped".

It means what it says.

If you don't want people to drink big soft drinks, promote your view. Tell them, "We think this is one of the many reasons for obesity and we think people should use better judgement", not make laws to enforce it. (though I will note this is a state law, not a federal)

And, Well Regulated Militia means exactly that.
 
Lowaicue said:
The blue states, I believe, are in the north and east. The red states are what you call 'cattle states'. Cattle men traditionally need to protect their herds and themselves whereas the blue states traditionally have been farming states where populations are more stable. Stable population breeds reliance upon the 'society', the development of urban living, the necessity to have and support the laws that make such a lifestyle possible.
So you in the red states you get this weird correlation of guns, god and gop. All vital to the survival of the traditionally poorly educated cattleman. The problem is that urbanisation spreads and the cattlemen feel a need to fight the civilisation it brings because a cattleman must be macho and fight.
That's OK until they start to think of themselves as equal or better than the urbanites, which of course they will never be.
Click to expand...

The major farming states are right accross the centre of the US, in such states as Kansas, Nebraska, Ohio, and Iowa. So, basically, the farming states are split up between the two parties fairly evenly.
 
Anti-Party said:
I like where this is going. It shines light on my perspective.

To you "promote" does not mean "provide". But to you "Regulated" means "well equipped".

It means what it says.

If you don't want people to drink big soft drinks, promote your view. Tell them, "We think this is one of the many reasons for obesity and we think people should use better judgement", not make laws to enforce it. (though I will note this is a state law, not a federal)

And, Well Regulated Militia means exactly that.
Click to expand...

It wasn't USF arguing that "promote" doesn't mean "provide" and "regulated" means "equipped," it was me. And so far, you, nor any of the other morons, have proved me incorrect. You see, some words in our language have multiple meanings, and others have fairly specific meaning. That's how some words can mean different things while others can't. The trick to understanding is not being retarded, which is a standard you just can't seem to meet.

You've been shown the evidence, the Federalist 46, where Madison explains what the intentions of the 2nd Amendment are, and exactly what it means. It's been demonstrated how it can't possibly mean what you interpret, because it would defy logic and ignore context. But context and logic aren't important when you have an agenda to press.

We've dissected the sentence itself, to show that "well regulated" can only apply to the militia, and can't possibly indicate grant of power to government to regulate, because the remainder of the sentence explicitly prohibits it. How the hell can government have the power to regulate something it has no power to infringe upon?

It's like arguing the 1st gives us inalienable "free speech" rights, but the government can regulate that because they determine what "free" means! Nowhere in the 1st is government granted power to restrict our freedom of speech. Now, some morons can come in and reinterpret words, or take things completely out of context, and they can imply the 1st Amendment gives the government power it simply doesn't have. Such is often the case for ideological-driven morons.
 
Dixie said:
What's absurd is how you can post the definition of a word, proving you to be absolutely wrong, yet you continue to insist you are right! There is nothing in the definition of "promote" to indicate an obligation or responsibility to provide for. That was your initial statement, highlighted in red from my last post. To "help" the people is an ambiguous term, it means a variety of things to various people, and we may sharply disagree on how to effectively "help" someone. So, no, the government was never set up or designed to "help" anyone. Promote...encourage to exist and flourish... sure, government is supposed to be committed to that. To do things we can all universally agree are helpful, sure... government can do that. But the founding fathers certainly had no intention of the federal government "providing" things for anyone.

You keep repeating your mindless posts from before, as if we can't read the previous posts you made. It does not matter what courts have found to be reliable evidence, it matters what the constitution says and means, according to the authors of the constitution. The only "achievement" they hoped for, was a unification of the states under one federation, for the SOLE benefit of the states themselves, and the people who reside in them.

Where did I state they didn't want the government to "do anything?" Why would the founding fathers use the word "promote" if they meant the government should "provide?" These were smart men who doted over every word they penned, it's impossible to believe such a striking contradiction would have slipped by them like this.

You completely pervert and misconstrue the Preamble, we've been through this already. The Founding Fathers, who wrote the Preamble, can also explain to us exactly what they had in mind, if we are intellectual enough to read and comprehend the Federalist Papers. Now speaking of the Federalist Papers, the person who was the Founding Father who was responsible for printing, publishing and distributing said Papers, was one, Benjamin Franklin. Aside from his notoriety as a Founding Father, author, printer and inventor, an ambassador and diplomat for the US, he is also credited with starting the first public hospital in America. I suppose this would have been quite difficult, what with the 'lack of medicine or doctors' in the day, but he still managed to do this, so we know for a fact the founding fathers were aware of health care.

One doesn't assume their own meanings for terms used in the constitution, and then claim it is common sense. Not unless One wants to appear to be a total moron. One has to read what the Founding Fathers explained regarding their words, in the Federalist Papers, and comprehend the context of what they penned in the Constitution. Unless One is able to do that, and has the intelligent wattage to understand the written language of the colonial era, One can never fully comprehend with logic or common sense, what the Founding Fathers intended. One can speculate, One can pontificate on what they falsely BELIEVE the Founding Fathers meant, or what they WISH the Founding Fathers had said, but One can't really ever know, because One is a Moron.
Click to expand...

The only "achievement" they hoped for, was a unification of the states under one federation, for the SOLE benefit of the states themselves, and the people who reside in them.

Yes!! You understand but you are having a problem making the connection. It reminds me of the "forest/trees" adage.

Let's take this one step at a time. "for the SOLE benefit of the states themselves, and the people who reside in them." So, to rephrase what you wrote we can say one of the reasons the Constitution was written was for the benefit of the people. Agreed? If so, we'll move on.

Step two. Having a choice between life and death which one would you say is more beneficial to people? Stated another way would you say people preferred to live or to die? If you choose "live" then we can continue.

So far we have concluded two things. First, the Constitution was implemented for the benefit of the people and, number two, that living is considered more beneficial than dying. So, when the government tries to promote life by passing laws, as in the case of ObamaCare or restrictions, as in the case of fire arms, the government is following exactly what the Founding Fathers hoped the Constitution would achieve.

For some reason you have difficulty making that connection. Furthermore, regarding "for the SOLE benefit of the states themselves" surely the continued health and life of the citizens is of benefit to the state. Therefore, the government is trying to fulfill both conditions YOU stated: "the SOLE benefit of the states themselves, and the people who reside in them."

And there you have it. :)
 
So far we have concluded two things. First, the Constitution was implemented for the benefit of the people and, number two, that living is considered more beneficial than dying. So, when the government tries to promote life by passing laws, as in the case of ObamaCare or restrictions, as in the case of fire arms, the government is following exactly what the Founding Fathers hoped the Constitution would achieve.

For some reason you have difficulty making that connection.
Click to expand...

I'm not having difficulty with anything, retard. Obamacare benefits no one, it costs every taxpaying American more, and every working American more, and doesn't provide any additional benefit, in fact, it will only make the situation worse. More people will ultimately die because of Obamacare. It's a great example of government overreach, and exactly what the founding fathers hoped would NEVER happen, with regard to the Constitution.

With the level of mental retardation exhibited in this simplistic perversion you've presented, I am surprised you aren't arguing the 2nd Amendment "right to bear arms" is merely our right to wear sleeveless shirts! As long as the government isn't making us wear long sleeves, they can take our guns away all day long, it's not a problem!
 
Anti-Party said:
I like where this is going. It shines light on my perspective.

To you "promote" does not mean "provide". But to you "Regulated" means "well equipped".

It means what it says.

If you don't want people to drink big soft drinks, promote your view. Tell them, "We think this is one of the many reasons for obesity and we think people should use better judgement", not make laws to enforce it. (though I will note this is a state law, not a federal)

And, Well Regulated Militia means exactly that.
Click to expand...

That was a nice diatribe; but had nothing to do with the fact that "promote" does not mean "provide".

And could you please show where I ever said that "regulated" meant "well equipped"?
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
That was a nice diatribe; but had nothing to do with the fact that "promote" does not mean "provide".

And could you please show where I ever said that "regulated" meant "well equipped"?
Click to expand...

Maybe all Right Wingers should get on the same page..........It's called organization.
 
Dixie said:
It wasn't USF arguing that "promote" doesn't mean "provide" and "regulated" means "equipped," it was me. And so far, you, nor any of the other morons, have proved me incorrect. You see, some words in our language have multiple meanings, and others have fairly specific meaning. That's how some words can mean different things while others can't. The trick to understanding is not being retarded, which is a standard you just can't seem to meet.

You've been shown the evidence, the Federalist 46, where Madison explains what the intentions of the 2nd Amendment are, and exactly what it means. It's been demonstrated how it can't possibly mean what you interpret, because it would defy logic and ignore context. But context and logic aren't important when you have an agenda to press.

We've dissected the sentence itself, to show that "well regulated" can only apply to the militia, and can't possibly indicate grant of power to government to regulate, because the remainder of the sentence explicitly prohibits it. How the hell can government have the power to regulate something it has no power to infringe upon?

It's like arguing the 1st gives us inalienable "free speech" rights, but the government can regulate that because they determine what "free" means! Nowhere in the 1st is government granted power to restrict our freedom of speech. Now, some morons can come in and reinterpret words, or take things completely out of context, and they can imply the 1st Amendment gives the government power it simply doesn't have. Such is often the case for ideological-driven morons.
Click to expand...

First off, you should act like an adult when debating politics. It's hard to take you seriously when you are as mature as a 13 year old. People get mad at times, but you are a 24/7 immature child.

You never even debated the 2nd Amendment the way I see it. You ONLY said I was wrong and said it meant something else. I did however prove that your interpretation is much less likely.

You seem to think that Federal Documents stating, "A well regulated militia is necessary" has nothing to do with the Federal Government. Then you say the rest of the sentence proves it can't have anything to do with Federal Government, all written in A FEDERAL DOCUMENT.

It says our right to bear arms will not be infringed, not the federal right to regulate them.

Maybe the word you are having trouble with is regulate. Gun regulation does NOT mean gun grabbing. Gun regulation means screening individuals as much as needed so something very dangerous isn't in the wrong hands in society.

I'm pretty sure you will be banned from my posts from now on because you do not challenge my arguments at all, you scream and cry like a child and you don't seem to know a thing about politics....
 
Anti-Party said:
First off, you should act like an adult when debating politics. It's hard to take you seriously when you are as mature as a 13 year old. People get mad at times, but you are a 24/7 immature child.

You never even debated the 2nd Amendment the way I see it. You ONLY said I was wrong and said it meant something else. I did however prove that your interpretation is much less likely.
Click to expand...

Oh but I most certainly DID debate the 2nd Amendment, I showed you where Founding Father Madison wrote Federalist 46, and explained what was meant in quite specific detail, to which you never responded and continue to ignore. I've even explained why I believe you continue to ignore the Federalist Papers, it's because you lack the intelligence to comprehend what they are saying. I've gone so far as to break down the sentence for you, and demonstrate how it can't infer any federal obligation or authority to 'regulate' and still conform to logic and proper grammar. None of these measures seem to be working on you, as you defiantly insist you are right and refuse to acknowledge the mounting evidence to the contrary.

You seem to think that Federal Documents stating, "A well regulated militia is necessary" has nothing to do with the Federal Government. Then you say the rest of the sentence proves it can't have anything to do with Federal Government, all written in A FEDERAL DOCUMENT.
Click to expand...

I really don't understand your argument here... what kind of document SHOULD it be? A State of Idaho Document? A King of England Document? The Constitution doesn't grant authority or power to the government by virtue of being a "federal" document. "A well regulated militia" does not read "A well federal-regulated militia!" The responsibility for regulation falls with the states and people who formed the militia, not the federal government, they are expressly prohibited from infringing on this right, according to the last part of the sentence.

It says our right to bear arms will not be infringed, not the federal right to regulate them.
Click to expand...

But it doesn't give the federal government the power to infringe with regulation. This is where you misunderstand the word "regulated" and assume it means something it doesn't. In this context, it means "well-outfitted" or "well-equipped" or "well-maintained with regularity." The responsibility for this, lies with those responsible for the militia, not the federal government, who is forbidden from infringing on this right. YOUR interpretation seems to give federal government the power to render an inalienable right, malleable, dependent upon the discretion of the federal government. How can this contradiction stand? How can government have the power to control a right that no one controls? This is the simple question Madison asked, I've asked, Damo has asked, and you have avoided answering.

Maybe the word you are having trouble with is regulate. Gun regulation does NOT mean gun grabbing. Gun regulation means screening individuals as much as needed so something very dangerous isn't in the wrong hands in society.
Click to expand...

No, "regulated" is the word YOU are having trouble with. I am well aware of gun regulations, we have had those for many years in this country, in every state, we require background checks and have all kinds of restrictions on gun ownership. No one I know of is proposing we do away with all the gun laws! The shooter in CT didn't follow our gun laws! The shooter in Aurora, didn't obey our gun laws! There is no law you can pass that criminals are going to obey! Nothing you can ever do, will ensure that guns never fall into the wrong hands....ask Eric Holder!

I'm pretty sure you will be banned from my posts from now on because you do not challenge my arguments at all, you scream and cry like a child and you don't seem to know a thing about politics....
Click to expand...

And that is your right.
 
Dixie said:
I'm not having difficulty with anything, retard. Obamacare benefits no one, it costs every taxpaying American more, and every working American more, and doesn't provide any additional benefit, in fact, it will only make the situation worse. More people will ultimately die because of Obamacare. It's a great example of government overreach, and exactly what the founding fathers hoped would NEVER happen, with regard to the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Stop being silly. Provisions have been made to help those who can't afford it and penalties for those who can afford it but try to skirt the law. A yearly check-up will go a long way to extend longevity as people tend to not visit a doctor until symptoms become great.

With the level of mental retardation exhibited in this simplistic perversion you've presented, I am surprised you aren't arguing the 2nd Amendment "right to bear arms" is merely our right to wear sleeveless shirts! As long as the government isn't making us wear long sleeves, they can take our guns away all day long, it's not a problem!
Click to expand...

I can understand you making such a comparision. That's just the way your brain works but that's OK. Smarter people than you devised ObamaCare and additional smarter people ruled it's legal so you're protected even if you don't want to be. Isn't democracy great? Aren't you glad you have a leader who tries to look after you? :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top