liberals hate first amendment

[Minister of Truth]

Congrats (seriously)....but that has no bearing on your assertions.

Clearly then, the clause of purpose in the 2nd Amendment has lost all meaning, and should be ignored the way the Courts recognize the Preamble to have no legal standing, but is merely a statement of purpose. The only way to understand the use of the term "militia" is to look to the founders, such as Madison who wrote it, or to create a brand new definition, which is self-defeating to having a written Constitution at all.

Everything else was irrelevant, because no one has to join a militia to enjoy the right of not having their ability to possess arms infringed upon. In New York City during the draft riots of the Civil War, the government relied upon every able-bodied gun owner to come and help restore order. They were neither organized nor trained, but they were considered a militia nonetheless.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Clearly then, the clause of purpose in the 2nd Amendment has lost all meaning, and should be ignored the way the Courts recognize the Preamble to have no legal standing, but is merely a statement of purpose. The only way to understand the use of the term "militia" is to look to the founders, such as Madison who wrote it, or to create a brand new definition, which is self-defeating to having a written Constitution at all.

Everything else was irrelevant, because no one has to join a militia to enjoy the right of not having their ability to possess arms infringed upon. In New York City during the draft riots of the Civil War, the government relied upon every able-bodied gun owner to come and help restore order. They were neither organized nor trained, but they were considered a militia nonetheless.

And incredible display of convoluted logic....which has no bearing on what has transpired in our discussion. In other words, we've done this dance...and essentially you're just repeating an assertion that has been addressed in detail. You can stubbornly maintain your opinion, supposition and conjecture..but you cannot disprove the facts or the logic I previously put forth.

 

[Minister of Truth]

And incredible display of convoluted logic....which has no bearing on what has transpired in our discussion. In other words, we've done this dance...and essentially you're just repeating an assertion that has been addressed in detail. You can stubbornly maintain your opinion, supposition and conjecture..but you cannot disprove the facts or the logic I previously put forth.

Logically, you cannot take a statement of purpose referring to the militia and claim that it overrides the legal doctrine of the individual citizen having unrestricted access to arms. That is a non-literate argument.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
And incredible display of convoluted logic....which has no bearing on what has transpired in our discussion. In other words, we've done this dance...and essentially you're just repeating an assertion that has been addressed in detail. You can stubbornly maintain your opinion, supposition and conjecture..but you cannot disprove the facts or the logic I previously put forth.

Logically, you cannot take a statement of purpose referring to the militia and claim that it overrides the legal doctrine of the individual citizen having unrestricted access to arms. That is a non-literate argument.

Sorry, but all one has to do is click back on the thread and follow the discussion. We took this apart piece by piece, and in each portion you just relied on repetition as proof of your assertion. Unfortunately for you, the thread shows how I deconstructed your "logic". So now you're back to stating the same premise 6 ways to Sunday. Been there, done that...and if this is all you've got, I'd say we're done and will move on.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
"For a people who are free and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security. It is, therefore, incumbent on us at every meeting [of Congress] to revise the condition of the militia and to ask ourselves if it is prepared to repel a powerful enemy at every point of our territories exposed to invasion... Congress alone have power to produce a uniform state of preparation in this great organ of defense. The interests which they so deeply feel in their own and their country's security will present this as among the most important objects of their deliberation."
--Thomas Jefferson: 8th Annual Message, 1808. ME 3:482 [/b][/color]



And since when was a militia formed solely for defense against a potential domestic problems? See master mind, you and your compadres kept wailing that Jefferson concurred with your mindset that the second amendment guaranteed citizens the right to possess guns without being part of a militia. Unfortunately for you and the other willfully ignornant jokers, Jefferson here makes it quite clear who the militia are and why they must be defined and affirmed by Congress. Try as you might, you can't separate the two. But do keep trying....I enjoy a good clown show.



And again, you are talking about MILITIAS! You are talking about National Guard...and ORGANIZATION THAT YOU HAVE TO OFFICIALLY JOIN, LIKE A MILITIA. So once again, the 2nd Amendment is not about giving any Joe Schmoe the right to own a gun...it's about those who belong to a militia, formed by the people.

So the planners were able to see 200 years into the future and see that the US would have an organization called the National Guard??
Why didn't they just call it The National Guard??

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Yea, lie like a rug and runaway, twinky. I have disproven every single point you have tried to lie about. Too bad for you. And then you lie even about that.

But, like You say, the record IS there showing what a truly lying brainless twit you are. Must really suck to be you.

Bye bye now, little twinky.

I tried to warn you guys about the poor pathetic wall flower, known as sissie.
But would you listen??
NO, you just had to see for yourself.

LOL

 

[USFREEDOM911]

this is a bogus argument and would have to be presupposed that the founders were imagining the national guard when they wrote the 2nd Amendment. A completely moronic idea. The 'militia' was able bodied citizens, bearing their own arms, training together, and organizing under the principle that free men had the interests of freedom at heart and that standing armies were not to be trusted. in other words, the militia is not the national guard simply because some judge in 1903 said it was.

He likes to take one aspect of an explanation and then he latches onto it, like a whore on a dick.

1 a: a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency b: a body of citizens organized for military service
2: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

 

[Good Luck]

And again, you are talking about MILITIAS! You are talking about National Guard...and ORGANIZATION THAT YOU HAVE TO OFFICIALLY JOIN, LIKE A MILITIA. So once again, the 2nd Amendment is not about giving any Joe Schmoe the right to own a gun...it's about those who belong to a militia, formed by the people.

Liar.

First, SCOTUS disagrees with you. Heard of the Heller decision? Of course, there are SCOTUS decisions I disagree with, so I would not blame you if you did not accept Heller, by itself, as "proof" you are wrong.

Second, no where else in all the writings by those involved with the Constitutional Convention did they write the term "the people" and mean, instead, an official government controlled organization. When they wrote "the people" they meant, each and every time, the individual citizens of the country. There is ZERO reason to believe the 2nd amendment is the only exception. IF they had meant only the people of an organized militia to have the right, they would have said so. (ie: The right of the membership of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.) But instead, it says "the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The people are us, every Jack, Jane and Harry citizen. WE, individually, have the right to keep and bear arms. That is what they mean every other time they mention "THE PEOPLE", and that is what they mean in the 2nd Amendment when they say "THE PEOPLE".

Additionally, your quote from TJ in 1808 in no way negates what was originally intended (proven by many more statements than I posted) by the 2nd Amendment. TJ is talking about the need for a strong militia because they were facing border encroachments and the potential for more serious threats. He says that the federal government has the ability to assure a stronger militia than depending on the states individually. NOWHERE does he say the basic right of arms belongs anywhere except in the peoples' hands. What he DOES say is the federal government has the ability and authority to directly support the militia, thus making it stronger than the states could do on their own. You'd know that if you were not busy deliberately lying through omission by leaving out most of the speech, especially the REASONS he was recommending federal support of the militia.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

"organizing" is the key word in your statement.......it wasn't just every tom, dick & harry milling about with guns on weekends. Yep, if standing armies weren't to organized, then the citizens had the right to ORGANIZE A MILITIA. What's interesting is how you are so keen to interpret the Constitution in your favor to prove a legality, yet you automatically dismiss a LEGAL judgement that really does no harm to the whole concept of state militias....which still exist today in some states along with National Guard (but without the same responsiblities as the National Guard).

have you actually read the constitution? specifically Art 1, Sec 10, clause 3, that states:

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

,

so bozo, since states can't keep troops without the consent of congress, and congress has only authorized the national guard (a branch funded, trained, and armed by the feds) they are not state troops nor are they the militia. Again, for your learning impaired mind, the militia is NOT the national guard, it is the people themselves and 'well regulated' does not refer to government controlled.

and the constitution is SUPPOSED to be interpreted in favor of the citizens, not the government. thus my signature line.

reading, it does a mind good. this lesson is now over, there may be a test on monday.

 

[Good Luck]

He likes to take one aspect of an explanation and then he latches onto it, like a whore on a dick.

1 a: a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency b: a body of citizens organized for military service
2: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

Do you read your own posts? Who is "the whole body of able bodied male citizens"? As to who is, under law, subject to call to military service, the details change according to circumstance, but functionally the government could make every single adult citizen eligible for military service. In fact, except for upper age limits for first time enlistment, they already are.

Know what that means, twinky?

It means BY YOUR OWN QUOTE that every legally adult Jack, Jane and Harry citizen of these United States is functionally THE MILITIA. So, guess what, twinky? That means every Jack Jane and Harry have the right to keep and bear arms - just as we have been saying all along.

Amazing how you can provide the definition of militia BOLD IT and still miss the salient points. Must come from the mandatory lobotomy required to be a card carrying modern liberal.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Do you read your own posts? Who is "the whole body of able bodied male citizens"? As to who is, under law, subject to call to military service, the details change according to circumstance, but functionally the government could make every single adult citizen eligible for military service. In fact, except for upper age limits for first time enlistment, they already are.

Know what that means, twinky?

It means BY YOUR OWN QUOTE that every legally adult Jack, Jane and Harry citizen of these United States is functionally THE MILITIA. So, guess what, twinky? That means every Jack Jane and Harry have the right to keep and bear arms - just as we have been saying all along.

Amazing how you can provide the definition of militia BOLD IT and still miss the salient points. Must come from the mandatory lobotomy required to be a card carrying modern liberal.

Once again you have misunderstood my post.
I am in agreement with the public being able to bear arms.

What crawled up your ass lately; because it seems to be interfering with your ability to reason?

 

[Good Luck]

Once again you have misunderstood my post.
I am in agreement with the public being able to bear arms.

What crawled up your ass lately; because it seems to be interfering with your ability to reason?

My apologies. I misread who had posted that quote. I somehow got it in my head that was TaiChi's post. Maybe I accidentally double scrolled past a section. Or maybe I need new reading glasses.

I do know your stance on this topic.

Again, I apologize.

(But TaiChi is still a twinky....)

 

[christiefan915]

While the language of the time was definitely more patriarchical, I am not certain I agree that the founders attitudes were as bad as you claim. The early U.S. was still in large part a frontier society in which women, by necessity, worked and fought along side the men in many cases (the major exception being in formal military units). They were not unaware of the capabilities of frontier women.

Exactly. Worked and fought but not considered smart enough to have the vote or be on an equal footing with men socially, economically, or educationally.

 

[christiefan915]

No. It isn't recent.

In the past when gender was uncertain it was proper to use the male gendered pronouns. What is a recent development is the he/she, him/her, or using the female pronoun when uncertain.

Language has become much more gender-neutral even in the last 20 years or so.

Read some books or watch a series of movies starting with the '40's or '50's and you'll see the evolution.

 

[Damocles]

Language has become much more gender-neutral even in the last 20 years or so.

Read some books or watch a series of movies starting with the '40's or '50's and you'll see the evolution.

Correct, this is my point. Using "man" to mean both sexes is not a recent thing. The recent thing is the change to "gender neutral" language.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

My apologies. I misread who had posted that quote. I somehow got it in my head that was TaiChi's post. Maybe I accidentally double scrolled past a section. Or maybe I need new reading glasses.

I do know your stance on this topic.

Again, I apologize.

(But TaiChi is still a twinky....)

Apology accepted and I want to apologize also; because I didn't have to respond the way I did also.

*GROUP HUG*

 

[Good Luck]

Language has become much more gender-neutral even in the last 20 years or so.

Read some books or watch a series of movies starting with the '40's or '50's and you'll see the evolution.

As Damocles posted - the evolution toward a more gender neutral language is the center of our point. The use of the word "man" or "men" for both genders is older than the Constitution, and it was considered perfectly acceptable until relatively recently. Only recently have we been leaning more towards gender neutral words like "person" and "people/persons".

Of course, this thread has gone WAY beyond this particular side issue. LOL

 

[Good Luck]

Apology accepted and I want to apologize also; because I didn't have to respond the way I did also.

*GROUP HUG*

You had to choose a GIF that looks like they are sucking each others' tonsils?

How about:

Otherwise, bygones are bygones.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

You had to choose a GIF that looks like they are sucking each others' tonsils?

How about:

Otherwise, bygones are bygones.

Yeah, that was kind of "gay; HUH!!
Now; I'm sure I'll hear about either it, or this post.

LOL

 

[Taichiliberal]

have you actually read the constitution? specifically Art 1, Sec 10, clause 3, that states: ,

so bozo, since states can't keep troops without the consent of congress, and congress has only authorized the national guard (a branch funded, trained, and armed by the feds) they are not state troops nor are they the militia. Again, for your learning impaired mind, the militia is NOT the national guard, it is the people themselves and 'well regulated' does not refer to government controlled.

and the constitution is SUPPOSED to be interpreted in favor of the citizens, not the government. thus my signature line.

reading, it does a mind good. this lesson is now over, there may be a test on monday.

Spare us all these lame ass tirades to pump your self up, toodles. No matter how many theories you throw out, a person STILL has to register as a member of a state militia. Period. You can bluff and bluster all you want, but you can't change that little fact. I note that you REFUSE to do the basic research into the current state of militias in America......basically because you don't have the maturity to examine ANYTHING that might contradict your viewpoint. And I am sick & tired of doing homework for willfully ignorant neocon fops with delusions of intellectual superiority.

See, unlike you, not only did I read the Constitution, but I also read what's transpired after it was written, NOT what I would like things to be.